• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Khadr Thread

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was under the impression that the very essence of our nation was to fight against these terrorists.  What happened, Canada?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
Only if the media decides its worth it to its readership.
People here are ambivalent unless it punches them in the face and becomes personal.
We talk a big talk but dont walk the walk.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,342
Points
1,010
Fishbone Jones said:
Only if the media decides its worth it to its readership.
People here are ambivalent unless it punches them in the face and becomes personal.
We talk a big talk but dont walk the walk.

You are correct.
We can walk the walk only if it doesn’t cost too much in $$.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
933
Points
1,090
TimneyTime said:
The second point:  That's sad but true.  Some of them even get $10 million from the government for reasons.  Shocking that a terrorist can still be labelled a Canadian citizen.  That in itself should revoke Canadian citizenship.

Omar Kadr killed a US Delta Force Sgt. so he could be moved to Canada and avoid US conviction.  He's now appealing the court case against him in the US.  His father was a top commander in Al-Quaeda.  What a deal he got.


I agree with much of what you've said here TT.  From a moral perspective, I don't think anybody disagrees with you.

And yes, from both a financial & legal basis, we probably got off pretty light.  I can't say after years of being tortured and imprisoned, I'd have the strength to carry on a lengthy legal battle if someone offered me $10M to go away...


At the end of the day though, these people ARE Canadian citizens.  Period.  Whether we like it or not, they are.

And as such, the course of actions of military operations, how law enforcement deals with things, and how the courts deal with things are greatly influenced due to the fact that they ARE citizens, and are entitled to the same legal protections as the rest of us...as undeserving as they may be. 

 

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Haggis said:
Slight tangent:  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.

That's no excuse to give him $10m... He should be getting the electric chair imo.

And the big caveat is that he might have cost, not would have.  It's no excuse to wave off his ties with Al-Quaeda, and his atrocities over what could have been the court costs... especially when Khadr himself is reaping the benefits of the settlement.

My suspicion is that the government is just saying $40 million, to make what they did seem more palatable.

Trudeau literally stood there quoting the charter of rights and freedoms as his defence for paying $10.5 million.  Unfortunately, murder is against the law.

So if someone commits murder, I don't think the next logical response is to pay them $10.5 million dollars.

We definitely don't have to stand up for the rights of murderers.  Nor do we have to stand up for the rights of members of Al-Quaeda and their families.

Trudeau said:

“That when a government violates a Canadian, any Canadian’s fundamental rights, and allows them to be tortured, there are consequences and we all must pay,”

I say, who cares if Khadr was "tortured"... he's a terrorist.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,911
Points
1,040
Haggis said:
Slight tangent:  The general legal opinions pretty much agree that Khadr would have won his $50M (plus costs) suit against the Government of Canada (GoC) for his rights being violated and that the GoC would've spent far more than $10M defending against his suit.  Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.

I'd like to see the source on that "general legal opinion". Considering the minimal extent of involvement of the Canadians in his case I would think that any damages would have been substantially less. Canadian courts ain't that generous.

:pop:
 

larry Strong

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Judge rules Omar Khadr's sentence has expired

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/judge-rules-omar-khadr-s-sentence-has-expired-1.4350209

EDMONTON -- An Alberta judge has ruled that a war crimes sentence for former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr has expired.

An eight-year sentence imposed in 2010 would have ended last October had Khadr remained in custody.

But the clock stopped ticking when a judge freed him on bail in 2015 pending Khadr's appeal of his military conviction in the United States.

hief Justice Mary Moreau says the Youth Criminal Justice Act gives judges flexibility to consider bail conditions as part of a sentence.

She told an Edmonton court Monday that, with that in mind, she ruled Khadr has served his time.

The Supreme Court of Canada had already said the punishment handed Khadr for alleged acts committed in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old was to be a youth sentence.

Khadr's lawyer Nathan Whitling had argued earlier this year that Khadr had served more than seven years in custody and on bail.

The Crown had argued Khadr should serve the remainder of his sentence in the community.

Whitling said the appeal of the sentence in the U.S. hadn't moved forward at all and it would be unfair to use that against his client.

Whitling also argued that the military commission that sentenced Khadr has been widely discredited by legal experts.

Khadr spent years in U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay after he was captured and accused of tossing a grenade that killed special forces soldier Christopher Speer at a militant compound in Afghanistan in 2001.

Since his release on bail, Khadr has lived in Edmonton and Red Deer, Alta., without incident. The court had eased some of his initial bail conditions, but several remained in place.

Khadr could not have access to a Canadian passport and was banned from unsupervised communication with his sister, who lives in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. He also had to notify his bail supervisor before leaving Alberta.

Moreau said all the conditions are lifted.

Khadr's case has ignited divisive debate among Canadians over terrorism, human rights and the rule of law since it was revealed in 2017 that the federal government settled a lawsuit filed by him for a reported $10.5 million.

The payout followed a 2010 ruling by Canada's Supreme Court that Khadr's charter rights were violated at Guantanamo and that Canadian officials contributed to that violation.



Cheers
Larry
 

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Larry Strong said:
Judge rules Omar Khadr's sentence has expired

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/judge-rules-omar-khadr-s-sentence-has-expired-1.4350209



Cheers
Larry

I'd love to ask Speer's family how they feel about this.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
3,884
Points
1,110
TimneyTime said:
I'd love to ask Speer's family how they feel about this.

Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.

I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.

His case is an excellent example of why the rule of law matters when our actions overseas are predicated on being the good guys.

I do not have answers for what *should* have done with him (and I must always defer to the law against my own comfort or preferences). What *was* done was about the worst case in terms of things they should have expected to be an embarrassing bite in the ass down the road.
 

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brihard said:
Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.

I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.

His case is an excellent example of why the rule of law matters when our actions overseas are predicated on being the good guys.

I do not have answers for what *should* have done with him (and I must always defer to the law against my own comfort or preferences). What *was* done was about the worst case in terms of things they should have expected to be an embarrassing bite in the *** down the road.

Khadr's father was an Al Quaeda commander, and he has all kinds of other ties to the organization.  So while we may be dealing with a case where he shot the sheriff but not the deputy... it doesn't really matter.  What's clear is that he is a terrorist from a family of terrorists.  You can't deny his lineage.
 

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brihard said:
Frankly it’s not relevant. Tragic as his death in theatre was, there isn’t actually any evidence that Khadr is culpable for that particular act. A recanted confession made against the backdrop of a youth trying to avoid indefinite detention and abuse at Guantanamo bay is about the single most useless thing known to law or anything pretending to be such.

I can understand the Speer family’s anger, but their government set them up for disappointment in the first place by trying to use their family member’s death as an expedient answer to what the hell you do with a captured fifteen year old in Afghanistan who quite petulantly declined to die when it would have been more convenient for everyone else involved. I believe to this day that they took what scant details they could be sure of and trumped up the (ex post facto, I might add) charges that they then coerced Khadr into confessing to.

His case is an excellent example of why the rule of law matters when our actions overseas are predicated on being the good guys.

I do not have answers for what *should* have done with him (and I must always defer to the law against my own comfort or preferences). What *was* done was about the worst case in terms of things they should have expected to be an embarrassing bite in the *** down the road.

Also, it's kind of hard to justify defending Khadr, when he was accused of throwing a grenade at Speer.  Did the grenade materialize out of thin air and explode in Speer's face?  I don't think so.  I also doubt anyone else would have thrown the grenade, as it's pretty restricted who would have been at the scene at the time the crime was committed.  Unless we put our tinfoil hats on and say it was an inside job, I'm not sure what the options are here.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,535
Points
990
Could it have been the al-Qaeda fighter also present there, who was shot and killed before US forces shot Khadr in the back?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-witness-account-shows-khadr-charges-should-be-dropped-lawyers-1.765709?ref=rss
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
Khadr has admitted to throwing grenades. Did he throw THE grenade? I don't know.
I'm probably wrong, but was he not the only belligerent still alive at the time?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
3,884
Points
1,110
Fishbone Jones said:
Khadr has admitted to throwing grenades. Did he throw THE grenade? I don't know.
I'm probably wrong, but was he not the only belligerent still alive at the time?

As best as I can dig up, he and one other fighter survived the air strike on the compound, so two belligerents were still alive when the grenade went off. This evidence was actually covered up until January 2008 when it was accidentally released to reporters. Who threw it will never be known. What I am confident is that as evidence for a criminal proceeding, his later recanted confession is as tainted and as inadmissible as it gets.

TimneyTime said:
Khadr's father was an Al Quaeda commander, and he has all kinds of other ties to the organization.  So while we may be dealing with a case where he shot the sheriff but not the deputy... it doesn't really matter.  What's clear is that he is a terrorist from a family of terrorists.  You can't deny his lineage.

Right, but we don’t prosecute people for the crimes of their fathers. To convict Khadr of murdering Speer, it has to be proven that he threw the grenade that killed him.

TimneyTime said:
Also, it's kind of hard to justify defending Khadr, when he was accused of throwing a grenade at Speer.  Did the grenade materialize out of thin air and explode in Speer's face?  I don't think so.  I also doubt anyone else would have thrown the grenade, as it's pretty restricted who would have been at the scene at the time the crime was committed.  Unless we put our tinfoil hats on and say it was an inside job, I'm not sure what the options are here.

One other adult fighter remained alive at the time of the grenade, and was shot and killed close to Khadr shortly after.

Khadr was a combatant, no question. He was ‘fair game’ as a military target. There is video of him building IEDs. I’m not defending his actions, character, or choices. He was certainly at one time our enemy... I’m not convinced he is anymore.

What I must defend is the rule of law. You simply cannot criminalize something after the fact, charge someone with that, hold a show trial without any regard for anything approaching standards of evidence admissibility, cover up exculpatory evidence, and expect the result to be taken seriously. Guantanamo Bay military commissions were a kangaroo court. If America had deliberately sought the worst way to botch this they could hardly have done worse.

Khadr was an enemy combatant who provided material support to hostile parties and who probably tried to kill allied soldiers. He was captured, and legally should probably have been treated as a child soldier, although such treatment would have been very imperfect for the circumstances. If charged criminally it should have been under a properly constituted court of law with recognized legal jurisdiction and proper judicial processes. Had that happened the result would have been ugly and imperfect, and quite unsatisfying, but not nearly the embarrassment that it turned into. And we probably wouldn’t have shelled out $10 mil.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
I don't know what people would have the Judge do in this case that would survive appeal to a higher court. The man was not given a life sentence, he was a young offender at the material time and he has served much more prison time than many others in the age group for similar crimes under Canadian law. So really, that is the law that applies to him now and not the law of the jungle. Nobody is being asked to forgive or forget, or hold different views of him, but time moves on and limited time was the most he could be sentenced to. It is now done.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,032
Points
1,090
I'm ready to move on from this person. I just wish the PM would recant his comment about our wounded veterans asking for more than what the government is prepared to give. Those words would make the 10 million easier to swallow.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,342
Points
1,010
FSTO said:
I'm ready to move on from this person. I just wish the PM would recant his comment about our wounded veterans asking for more than what the government is prepared to give. Those words would make the 10 million easier to swallow.

If I never hear of this again I will not complain.
 

Gunplumber

Jr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade

His own words. “I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”

Child Soldier: He was born September 19, 1986. In the early morning of July 27, 2002, a team made up of the 19th Special Forces Group, the 505th Infantry Regiment and about twenty[38] Afghan fighters associated with Pacha Khan Zadran, were sent to a house on a reconnaissance mission. Geneva Convention states: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities". Khadr was 16 at the time. He was not a child soldier.

There are plenty of Canadians in lots of prisons in other countries who have been by that countries laws and convicted. Just look at all the drug smugglers. They were not tried under Canadian law so why should Khadr get that option? The only law he should have been tried under is the Geneva Convention at it war an international "war". He was not wearing a uniform or a "That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" so he was an unlawful combatant was he not? "An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5."

 

TimneyTime

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gunplumber said:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/omar-khadr-describes-firefight-that-killed-u-s-soldier-im-just-going-to-throw-this-grenade

His own words. “I was thinking, ‘What should I do…?’ I didn’t know what to do. So I thought, I’m just going to throw this grenade and maybe just scare them away.”

Child Soldier: He was born September 19, 1986. In the early morning of July 27, 2002, a team made up of the 19th Special Forces Group, the 505th Infantry Regiment and about twenty[38] Afghan fighters associated with Pacha Khan Zadran, were sent to a house on a reconnaissance mission. Geneva Convention states: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities". Khadr was 16 at the time. He was not a child soldier.

There are plenty of Canadians in lots of prisons in other countries who have been by that countries laws and convicted. Just look at all the drug smugglers. They were not tried under Canadian law so why should Khadr get that option? The only law he should have been tried under is the Geneva Convention at it war an international "war". He was not wearing a uniform or a "That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" so he was an unlawful combatant was he not? "An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5."

I don't think grenades were designed to "scare people away".  I think a 15-16 year old knows exactly what grenades are for, and throwing one is intent to do harm, or property damage, or both.  Especially when what you're throwing the grenade AT is people.

I believe Khadr gets the option to be tried under Canadian law because he and his family have serious dirt on Canadian politicians, and that the $10mil was hush money.  Can I prove it... no.  But the whole situation just stinks of it.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,124
Points
1,060
The child soldier thing. Again. At the time of the self throwing grenade incident, the nearest person to it's point of origin was 15 years old. The UN at that time defined a child soldier as someone UNDER (as in "not yet") 15 years of age. Ipso fatso, he was not a child soldier. QED, innit?
 
Top