Canada now rewards terrorists

[Willamena]

Someone who is motivated to violence by Islamic extremism.

It's debatable that Khadr was an extremist.

The right to a family life.

They are also the next of kin for compensation paid to the victim for losing his right to life.

The (human) right to a family life references family structures. It does not protect against death in the family.

PS: I have to add, isn't the $134M award from Utah enough compensation?

 

[Augustus]

It's debatable that Khadr was an extremist.

Was he affiliated with the Taliban Peace Corps?

The (human) right to a family life references family structures. It does not protect against death in the family.

PS: I have to add, isn't the $134M award from Utah enough compensation?

Was Utah fighting for the Taliban too? I knew there was something wrong with them Mormons....

 

[Willamena]

Was he affiliated with the Taliban Peace Corps?

The Taliban have a Peace Corp?

Anyway, this is how Canada sees it:
Omar Khadr: Peace-loving Canadian or al-Qaeda royalty?

 

[Augustus]

Civil courts have methods for determining damages; whether it's the best use of funds is irrelevant.

There are already mechanisms in place to prevent money from flowing to terrorist states or organizations. If you don't think these protections are strong enough, I'm more than open to strengthening them.

In a country that respects the rule of law, people who have been wronged are entitled to redress. People who have been held without trial for years in inhuman conditions have been wronged.

There have been numerous jihadis treated in a similar manner, many of whom likely still hold their extreme views.

Giving them all money is basically a guarantee that some of it will end up harming society, there is no foolproof way of preventing this.

In fact, it has already happened: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-isil-suicide-attack-guantanamo-bay-detainee/

Even if you agree that 'something must be done', shouldn't all financial compensation be ruled out on moral grounds?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There have been numerous jihadis treated in a similar manner, many of whom likely still hold their extreme views.

Giving them all money is basically a guarantee that some of it will end up harming society, there is no foolproof way of preventing this.

In fact, it has already happened: British man who launched Isil suicide attack was Guantanamo Bay detainee awarded £1m compensation

Even if you agree that 'something must be done', shouldn't all financial compensation be ruled out on moral grounds?

Their rights have been violated. What other redress do you suggest?

 

[esmith]

Their rights have been violated. What other redress do you suggest?

What rights were violated?
He was held at Guantanamo detention camp after being captured. What did you want them to do with him, turn him lose? How about handing him over to the Afghan government, would you have preferred that?
To tell you the truth I don't give a damn what you Canadians do, it's not my tax payer money.

 

[Augustus]

Their rights have been violated. What other redress do you suggest?

"I spent 10 years in Gitmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"?

I think it is inevitable that some money would end up causing harm, so it's just a question of which rights I consider to be more important to protect.

Most of the people compensated would likely be extremists, even if a few were totally innocent. One death paid for with your money would leave you with a net deficit of justice.

Past harms cannot be undone, but future harms can be prevented.

Given that it has already happened, do you accept that it is inevitable that at least some of the compensation paid out across the board would be used to further extremism? (As well as the ISIS suicide bomber, here is also a 'charity' funded by former Gitmo detainee Moazzem Begg who described Muhammad Emwazi as a 'beautiful young man' and extended an invitation to Anwar al-Awlaki to speak at a fundraiser)

If so, why do you believe it is more important to compensate the prisoners than protect the innocent people who would be later harmed?

Or do you think you can have your cake and eat it with peace and justice for all?

 

[UpperLimits]

Apparently, Khadr got the money this past Wednesday:

$10.5M payout to Omar Khadr was made Wednesday, government confirms

It's being alleged that the government got the payment out now to make sure it was done before a hearing involving claims against Khadr. If so, I have problems with the government taking extraordinary steps to make this happen:

Oh absolutely. This very move by the government forms the bulk of my reprehension towards this whole issue.

If there was any kind of legitimate claim against the man, then the payment ought to have been withheld until those issues were completely resolved. If it turned out in the end that the claims were groundless, then he could have still gotten the payment. But now, the genuinely injured parties have to chase this man all over the legal system to try and extract their claim, greatly increasing their expenses and diminishing their chances of ever receiving reparations.

 

[UpperLimits]

For a jihadi who was involved in killing an innocent person?

$0 and a revocation of citizenship.

People who don't believe in affording rights to other people should not benefit from these right themselves.

I agree with the sentiment, but I believe Omar was a natural born Canadian. In such cases it's not possible to revoke citizenship.

 

[UpperLimits]

Which didn't happen, and which I say should have happened. The United States armed forces were bound by duty and honour to treat Khadr with a certain standard of care. They breached this duty.

When I pointed out that they shouldn't have done this, you said I sounded like a pacifist and a liberal. This is why I asked my question. All I suggested was that tge United States do its duty. Do the conservatives and non-pacifists you know not believe in duty? Is that why this suggestion sounded liberal and pacifist to you?

This is precisely why I'm so P.O.'d with this whole deal. It was the US that captured, held and tried the man. WHY in the H E double hockey sticks are Canadian taxpayers being forced to pay compensation to the guy????? Our government negotiated his release. And then he shows his "gratitude" by suing THEM?? I know it's just a given that he'd never get a wooden nickel from the States, but why persecute your saviors?

 

[UpperLimits]

How are you defining "jihadi"?

Also, what rights did the victim's family lose?

A corpse isn't enough to convince you of a loss?

 

[UpperLimits]

Their rights have been violated. What other redress do you suggest?

So what? I've have my rights violated periodically, too. Yet nobody's lining up to hand me wads of cash.

 

[UpperLimits]

PS: I have to add, isn't the $134M award from Utah enough compensation?

Payable by Khadr, dear...

PS 10.5M should make a nice down payment.

 

[UpperLimits]

So what is your "age of consent"? .

Varies by individual, but post 70 should give you a good baseline.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what? I've have my rights violated periodically, too. Yet nobody's lining up to hand me wads of cash.

Well, if you file a lawsuit against the people who violated your rights, and if you stand a good chance of winning, there's a good chance they'll offer you a settlement of half of what you calculate your damages to be, too.

I think it's funny how most of the people in this thread are portraying the Canadian government's decision as a matter of $10M vs. nothing; it wasn't. It was a matter of $10M now vs. a probable $20M (plus the expense of a trial) later.

All of you who want Khadr to receive as little as possible? You got your wish: in this situation, $10M is "as little as possible."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If so, why do you believe it is more important to compensate the prisoners than protect the innocent people who would be later harmed?

A government that can violate our rights without consequence is much more dangerous than any terrorist.

 

[esmith]

A government that can violate our rights without consequence is much more dangerous than any terrorist.

You still have not said what rights were violated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You still have not said what rights were violated.

I have several times, actually.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Payable by Khadr, dear...

PS 10.5M should make a nice down payment.

Unfortunately, the miscarriages of justice in the American courts mean that it will be next to impossible for Speer's widow to get a Canadian court to give an order to let her collect.

If she wants to get anything from him, she'll have to start all over in Canadian court. And thanks to the actions of the American military, there probably isn't much evidence to support her case that hasn't been hopelessly tainted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is precisely why I'm so P.O.'d with this whole deal. It was the US that captured, held and tried the man. WHY in the H E double hockey sticks are Canadian taxpayers being forced to pay compensation to the guy????? Our government negotiated his release. And then he shows his "gratitude" by suing THEM?? I know it's just a given that he'd never get a wooden nickel from the States, but why persecute your saviors?

Canada is being forced to pay because our government participated in the infringement of his rights. From the Supreme Court decision:

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention. The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.

CanLII - 2010 SCC 3 (CanLII)

Canadian officials:

- interrogated Khadr at GITMO in circumstances that violated his Charter rights.

- aided the US in violating his Charter rights by sharing intelligence on him with the Americans.

- blocked his repatriation to Canada, despite being obliged to return him to Canada to stop his Charter rights from being violated further.

The fact that they finally agreed to take him back doesn't mean that these infringements didn't happen.