Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Topaz

Widow suing Khadr

Recommended Posts

Just keep moving those goalposts.

Laws for you and for state actors differ. I didn't create the goal post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to follow your logic. If he was a soldier, what army was he a part of? It's a simple question.

Did the US declare war against Khadr and his associates? Was this not part of "The War on Terror"? Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topaz get out of the make believe world you live in.Kadr was not a soldier. He was not a member of a state army engaged in war against another state's army. As such your pretending he was and this exempts him from being sued is not only legally incorrect but its fantasy. He was a 15 year old engaging in crimes. He committed crimes against the Afghani state as a criminal and terrorist. He was not and was never a soldier. Stop calling terrorists and criminals soldiers. They never were. They choose to violate both the laws of the state they are in and all international conventions regarding war.

Not only can he be sued his surviving mother can be and any money Kadr makes from books he will publish should be seized and given to the widow.

In your world people commit acts of crime and terrorism and you think they are exempt from responsibility for their behaviour because you equate them with soldiers? Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyber your analogy is completely illegally wrong. The individual who attacked the police was not a member of a terrorist organization and a citizen of a foreign country illegally in Canada engaging in war against Canada. Your analogy ends right there.

Kadr can be sued because he engage in crimes against a foreign state and engaged in the wrongful death of a US soldier not as a soldier but as a terrorist and criminal both.

By the way the family of the dead police officer the lunatic killed in Canada can sue him for wrongful death. The RCMP are also exposed to civilian liability of the Labour Code violations are proven. This will then establish the grounds of liability to sue for wrongful death against the RCMP but the killer himself is not exempt from a civil action. No criminal or terrorist is. What fantasy world you live in where people escape civil liability for deliberately killing people I do not know but your analogy makes zero sense. In fact it doesn't support your position at all, jus the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyber can you go please look up the terrorist group Kadr was a member of. This was not and never was a state army. It does not believe in any state laws or Geneva conventions. Trying to pretend he was a member of an army is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeball there is no proper rule of law. There are no international laws or conventions as to the treatment of terrorists engaged in crimes and terrorist actions.None. So there is no proper law.

What there is are two other sets of laws that were options but not exercised. One was the domestic laws of the state of Afghanistan and technically since Kadr engaged in terrorism against that state and the US soldier was legally appointed and conferred with the powers of an Afghani soldier for the purpose of upholding Afghani laws, Kadr should have been turned over to the Afghani state for charges of homicide and insurrection. The US feared if they did that he would have easily escaped.

Kadr was never entitled to the protection of the Geneva conventions as he was not a soldier in a state army. His terror cell does not follow any laws of any nation. Some have created the fiction he was a child soldier. He never was. He never joined an army to be a soldier. If anything at the time of his actions he was a teen terrorist. In Canada a 15 year old is defined as a youth offender and would not necessarily come under the Criminal Code but he committed his crimson Afghani soil, and so the sovereignty of that nation's laws prevail and supercede Canada's. No you don't travel to a foreign country than claim the laws of Canada to protect you when you get caught.

The irony is there was Kadr's family sitting in a large home in Brampton, nicely furnished, ridiculing Canada as an infidel state in need of destruction and when their boy was caught, hey now the same Canada should bring him home and release him.

The other law available was US military law. He could have been arrested under US military law for killing a US soldier.

Bush however did not wish him turned over to the US Armed Forces because after a certain jail sentence the US military would allow rehabilitation and release and so Bush tried to create a hybrid law, a bit domestic, a bit military and neither military or domestic.The problem was it did not allow full disclosure of the evidence used for his charges and therefore violated the US constitution and 4 times the Supreme Court of the US ruled this way saying he would eventually have to be released. Britain and Australia demanded terrorists they caught be tried in their home countries, the US chose to jeep their prisoners in G Bay and when Obama was elected he forced Harper to take back Kadr. The laws Bush created to try deal with terrorists that fell outside US criminal and military laws could not pass the US Supreme Court's rulings that they lacked constitutionality.

The moment Kadr stepped back on to Canadian soil the Charter of Rights and Criminal Code applied and so there is now no law that will allow him kept in Canadian jails indefinitely. As the Charter stands if Harper tried to pass a new law to apply to Kadr it would be struck down as unconstitutional because of the length of sentencing.

That is it in a nut shell.

The fact is there is no proper law dealing with terrorists.

We have no conventions states have agreed to as to how to treat terrorists and it will probably never happen for the very reason terrorists do not follow any conventions or laws and for a convention to work they would have to abide by it not just the state signatories.

He is not a child soldier.He is a person at the time of his conduct was a 15 year old terrorist.

Some of you now think if you believe he is cute and cuddly he will magically turn into a nice grinning "good" Muslim boy, you know the kind that smiles and drink's Tim Horton's, works at Best Buy and gets a degree in Political Science from Carelton orConcordia before he writes a book, becomes an elected member of Parliament and eventually becomes PM of Canada replacing Justin after he's caught in a public washroom scandal.....that or he will open a chain of restaurants called Omar's featuring all halal burgers.

He's a good boy. Look how cut he is. He looks just like a cute little huskie. Wait until he tries to hump you and turns on you when you try feed him.

It never ceases to amaze me the idiots that come to the zoo and think they should pet the polar bear.

Kadr is a hyena. You think you can domesticate him with the proper laws yah sure.Give him the Charter of Rights as a snack-that will domesticate him. Hey once he digests that he won't pee on your carpet

What makes me puke are the number of arm chair geniuses calling him cute and cuddly-yah which one of you will take him home and have him marry your daughter and live in your basement breeding hmmmmm?

Lol. Liberals.Until it comes to your neighbourhood.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You remember when Justin Bourque, an armed militant, was cutting down RCMP officers in Moncton and the RCMP was caught with its pants down because they didn't provide the proper equipment to Codiac RCMP to deal with that situation?

You know who they didn't send in to deal with that armed militant? The military, despite the base being a little more than an hour away and they most certainly had the equipment necessary.

You know why they didn't send the military? Because they're not allowed to engage with civilians.

So when you argue that Khadr is a civilian, you're arguing that the military had no authority to go after him. When an occupying force shows up at his house with guns pointed in his face, they're pointing them at an illegal target by international convention. When he responds by attacking them, he's fighting a state military, which is actually more legal by international law than what the US military themselves were doing.

I'm just trying to follow your logic. If he was a soldier, what army was he a part of? It's a simple question.

I think cybercoma made a strong point but I can it's in vein.

There is absolutely nothing anyone can say/write to convince the Harper supporters that they're wrong.

I myself feel that cyber is wasting his time. But that's none of my business anyways. If cyber wants to go into further detail who am I to stop him?

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US declare war against Khadr and his associates? Was this not part of "The War on Terror"?

Why won't you answer the question. It's a simple question. What army was Khadr a soldier of? Again, what army was Khadr a soldier of? One more time, what army was Khadr a soldier of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cybercoma made a strong point but I can it's in vein.

There is absolutely nothing anyone can say/write to convince the Harper supporters that they're wrong.

I myself feel that cyber is wasting his time. But that's none of my business anyways. If cyber wants to go into further detail who am I to stop him?

WWWTT

What army was Khadr a soldier of? Please won't somebody answer the question. It should be fairly simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What army was Khadr a soldier of? Please won't somebody answer the question. It should be fairly simple.

Not my argument.

I don't even believe that is relevant with an attempt to sue him.

But let me ask you this.

What makes a death by a soldier any different than from anyone else?

How about a death from a drone?

WWWTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really simple. Omar Khadr was a Canadian child-soldier of the armed forces recognized in The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001.

Did anyone think to consult or confer with fellow signatories to established conventions on war and child-soldiers etc as to how an AUMF should regard kids and prisoners BEFORE formally and officially declaring one? If not why shouldn't that dictate that the Geneva Conventions be the default standard by which kids be treated? It was certainly the opinion of the U.N.'s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict in the case of Omar Khadr that it should, an opinion that was also mirrored in the deep concern voiced by officials in both the US and Canada. Official opinions that Bush, Chretien, Harper and Obama all clearly chose to ignore when they were advised of the situation and continue to ignore to this day. It's their fault we entered this war legally ill-prepared for the consequences of circumstances involving children that were caught up in fighting. These men are responsible for recklessly going in guns blazing and they should be personally liable for compensating Tabitha Speer in addition to Omar Khadr.

I can't help but note that the only reason Omar Khadr wasn't executed on the spot was that he spoke English. Does this mean that discretionary battlefield executions are now a normal and legal convention and rule of engagement in a officially declared war/AUMF?

Just how many kids have we executed anyway? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go get yourself waterboarded and then get back to us.

What army was Khadr a soldier of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really simple. Omar Khadr was a Canadian child-soldier of the armed forces recognized in The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001.

Did anyone think to consult or confer with fellow signatories to established conventions on war and child-soldiers etc as to how an AUMF should regard kids and prisoners BEFORE formally and officially declaring one? If not why shouldn't that dictate that the Geneva Conventions be the default standard by which kids be treated? It was certainly the opinion of the U.N.'s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict in the case of Omar Khadr that it should, an opinion that was also mirrored in the deep concern voiced by officials in both the US and Canada. Official opinions that Bush, Chretien, Harper and Obama all clearly chose to ignore when they were advised of the situation and continue to ignore to this day. It's their fault we entered this war legally ill-prepared for the consequences of circumstances involving children that were caught up in fighting. These men are responsible for recklessly going in guns blazing and they should be personally liable for compensating Tabitha Speer in addition to Omar Khadr.

I can't help but note that the only reason Omar Khadr wasn't executed on the spot was that he spoke English. Does this mean that discretionary battlefield executions are now a normal and legal convention and rule of engagement in a officially declared war/AUMF?

Just how many kids have we executed anyway? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

What army was Khadr a soldier of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with Shady. No child soldier has ever been part of a UN-recognized army. They are just children exploited by warlords and put into these ragtag groups. You simply can't charge a child with war crimes like you could a solider in a real army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the medic was killed by "friendly fire" by a US soldier , would she still sue, probably that's what American do a lot. I'm sorry her husband died, but that's the chances one takes when one goes into the military, she needs to get on with her life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with Shady. No child soldier has ever been part of a UN-recognized army. They are just children exploited by warlords and put into these ragtag groups. You simply can't charge a child with war crimes like you could a solider in a real army.

And yet we have 18-25 year olds doing most of the ground work in these areas. People that are young and do not have much real life experience yet. Not much better that children under 18. But then we have things like the Air Cadets, and such to condition our kids into a military type mentality. Go look at the toy store and see how many toys are military or violent by design. What are we exposing the kids to?

Kadhr was not part of any military. But I am not sure what Shady's point will be if someone admits that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with Shady. No child soldier has ever been part of a UN-recognized army. They are just children exploited by warlords and put into these ragtag groups. You simply can't charge a child with war crimes like you could a solider in a real army.

Since we've established that he clearly wasn't a part of any real army. I think the better description would be child terrorist, not child soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've established that he clearly wasn't a part of any real army. I think the better description would be child terrorist, not child soldier.

Okay child-terrorist. Now explain why so many officials from the U.N. not to mention the U.S. and Canada disregarded that difference as being utterly moot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've established that he clearly wasn't a part of any real army. I think the better description would be child terrorist, not child soldier.

Since we have established with you that he was a child, why then is it OK for him to be tried and imprisoned as an adult..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we have established with you that he was a child, why then is it OK for him to be tried and imprisoned as an adult..

There's plenty of precident of an individual that's close to adult age being tried as adults. Especially murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay child-terrorist. Now explain why so many officials from the U.N. not to mention the U.S. and Canada disregarded that difference as being utterly moot?

I don't know. What I do know is that the term child soldier doesn't apply at all to Mr. Khadr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of precident of an individual that's close to adult age being tried as adults. Especially murder.

The mishandling of this case is why he will very likely win on appeal which is part of why he was granted bail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. What I do know is that the term child soldier doesn't apply at all to Mr. Khadr.

Can you provide a modern-day example of who the term child soldier would apply to, if not him?

Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...