Kill an American get 10MM. Thanks Canada

Under what circumstances can the soldier's family sue the child (now adult)? Was it not a war zone? Does the definition of murder remain constant regardless of it occurring under the conditions of war? It would seem that courts could be flooded with claims given the extent of conflict taking place in the world today.

Edit: Previous opinions have changed upon reading CC's post and some more background information being presented.

Read this post the other day. It's a little slanted, but a decent summary. Not as simple as you think:

Okay, I'm fucking sick of the idiocy and done with writing a diatribe every single time a friend posts about how they're upset that Trudeau is giving a terrorist $10m. You people are.... wilfully ignorant and hypocritical. Here's why. (And I thoroughly suggest reading the entire post. If you know me, you know I'm neither stupid, nor an apologist. I am pure fucking science, and this post is such. Read it before making an ass of yourself by posting about how we just gave a terrorist money).

The story (the facts we know).
* Canadian born Khadr was taken to Afghanistan at 15 years old, by his father. We don't know if he wanted to go, and we don't know why they went. There has been zero evidence put forth to suggest the trip had anything to do with terrorism. Regardless, as he was only 15, he had no choice in the matter.
(EDIT: He was actually taken to Afghanistan at 9 years of age. He was taken to Gitmo at 15)
* Khadr was found in critical condition following a firefight. The mission debrief report filed by the US troops stated that a middle aged man threw a grenade, which killed one US soldier. The grenadier was shot in the head and confirmed killed.
* Khadr was taken to Guantanamo Bay prison. No charges were filed against him at that time.
* Several years later, formal charges were filed. These charges were technically not even charges of war crimes, as if they were true, Khadr would be considered an enemy combatant during a time of war, and thus everything he was accused of doing, was legal under rules of engagement. He was denied access to a lawyer at this point and no trial date was set. He was held in detention and tortured for nearly 10 years.
* Nearly a decade later, an addendum to the original mission debrief was submitted, which identified the grenadier as Khadr by name. The description was updated to match that of a 15 year old Khadr. The original report was not rescinded. No one knows who made the addendum. No US personnel present during the firefight confirms the addendum.
* A week later, Khadr is offered a plea deal. The terms of the deal were to admit guilt to all charges and serve a few more years in a Canadian prison, or refuse to admit guilt and be denied trial indefinitely.
* Khadr takes the plea deal, is transferred to Canada.
* Khadr sues the Canadian government for their involvement in his illegal detention, torture, and lack of a trial.

All of the above is true as far as anyone knows. That is the official story, from both the Canadian and US governments. They have said straight out that Khadr would not be offered a trial unless he took the plea deal. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Now let me ask you a question.
As a Canadian, what do you stand for? Do you believe that you, as a Canadian, have the right to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty, as well as the right to a fair and quick trial? I know this is hard for many of you to consider without jumping to "oh, but he's a terrorist, so fuck him, he's a traitor and doesn't deserve anything", but we'll get to that in a minute. Seriously consider this. Do you believe you have, as a Canadian, the inalienable right to everything laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

If you do, but still think Khadr does not, because he is a terrorist, let me ask you; "How do you know he is guilty?" There was no trial for 10 years, and he was only offered a trial on the condition that he plead guilty. How do we, as Canadians, determine guilt? Have you read and understood the Chart of Rights and Freedoms? It's entire purpose is precisely to ensure that what happened to Khadr, is not allowed to happen. Period.

Now I know many of you still can't get past the "but he's a traitor so he doesn't deserve a trial" even though neither you, nor me, nor the US or Canadian government were able to provide ANY evidence whatsoever, of his guilt (no evidence was submitted during his trial, presumably because none exists), but that doesn't matter. Let me explain the problem to you.

You are worried that terrorists are trying to take away your freedoms as a Canadian right? They're trying to force Sharia law upon us and we as Canadians, won't stand for that right?

Do you see where I'm going here? Presuming Khadr's guilt, with no evidence and without trial, is precisely what the terrorists want to do to Canada. Isn't that your concern? Does it not strike you then, that by saying that Khadr doesn't deserve a fair trial because he is a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence, nor a trial to prove the charges, that you are doing precisely what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do do us? A presumption of guilt, no trial, a decade of detention and torture. Is that not Sharia law?

At this point, I don't think any of us should even be concerned about Khadrs innocence or guilt. He is inconsequential at this point. The REAL concern for all Canadians, is that our government denied a Canadian citizen his inalienable rights, guaranteed to him under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They did EXACTLY what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do. If Khadr was guilty, a trial probably would have proven such, so why was he denied a trial?

For your information, the Canadian government did not simply offer up an apology and $10m for no reason. They were sued. The Canadian Supreme Court found in favour of Khadr, in that the Canadian government was in breach of Canadian and International law. That money will mostly be covering his legal fees. But here's where you should be more concerned about the money. The Canadian government spent $120m of your money, defending itself for committing what is legally, war crimes. Seriously. Your government, was just successfully sued, for war crimes. Crimes they committed not only against Khadr, but against the entire Canadian public. They assured us that we would all be given a fair trial, but now we know that is not true. They assured us that we will always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We know that is not true. They took your money, money which could have been spent on building half a hospital or something, and spent it instead, on committing war crimes, and crimes directly against the Charter on which our country was founded.

In summation:
If you believe Khadr did not deserve a fair and quick trial, you are not Canadian. You do not stand for what Canada stands for. You are saying very clearly, that you don't care about evidence, treating people (who we presume are innocent until proven guilty) with basic decency, or your own or anyone else's right to a fair trial. You are, quite literally, openly supporting about half of Sharia law. You fuckwits.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

I am settling with a somewhat similar point of view. I looked Omar up on Wikepedia and it sure is one complicated story. There are even pictures of him being tended to by American medics who may well have saved his life as he was badly injured.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

So he's found on a battlefield where if nothing else hr was engaged with American forces and detained by Americans in an American facility and Canada pays him 10MM for his troubles? Presumably a better outcome would have been to let him die.

So you are ok with a fifteen year old being detained for years with no charges and no representation?

In the end, don't know, nor do you know, whether he us a terrorist, am enemy combatant, or just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time. But his treatment at minimum appears to be horrid.

And I am betting there were many times that he would have agreed with you over the years of detention, that he would have been better off dead.

I like what Trudeau had to say about this: "the Charter protects all Canadians, even when it is uncomfortable."

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Canadians were involved in his torture. His rights as a Canadian were violated. He sued the government they settled because they were going to lose.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

This. As a Canadian citizen his rights were violated, as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Again, why is Canada paying him 10MM because he was detained by the US in an American facility?

So he's found on a battlefield where if nothing else hr was engaged with American forces and detained by Americans in an American facility and Canada pays him 10MM for his troubles?


The $10.5 million had nothing to do with the battlefield. As a Canadian, he has rights to a fair trial and it was never given to him and there is strong suspicion that his confession was under duress. It is not black and white and the fact that he was 15 makes it worse.

The government messed up and as much as I hate to see someone profiting from something like this, you are either for the rule of law or you aren't. I would rather pay him and stand for the laws that bend them or why bother having them in the first place. You would end up like China where they pretend to have a fair trial but the decision on guilt or innocence is made in advance.

Torture? What torture? Are you implying the United States tortured him or that Canadians tortured him and the US personnel just let it happen in their facility?

So let's say his "rights" were violates by Somalia, Canada still pays him?

Again all of your issues seem to be with how the US dealt with him, which begs the question why Canada paid him

Again all of your issues seem to be with how the US dealt with him, which begs the question why Canada paid him

The problem was that it was the Canadian intelligence agencies that were the problem. In 2010, the Supreme Court here ruled that our intelligence officials got evidence from Khadr while being exposed to "oppressive circumstances" (ie. torture) while he was investigated at Guantanamo. Our intelligence agencies then shared that information with U.S officials and they kept him in Guantanamo for 10 years.

It's really not as much about the U.S., it's about our intelligence "torturing" him to keep him in your prisons.

Well, I'm glad Obama closed Guantanamo.

He tried! When Congress shut his ass down, he backdoored the closure by reducing the # of inmates from hundreds to the current 41.

Oppressive circumstances? How is that stomach turning PC phrase defined?

So the position is that Canadians tortured another Canadian in US custody at a US facility and that the Americans didn't participate or monitor said torture but the information gleaned was passed on to the non participating non monitoring Americans in the room next door? That leaps needed to arrive at that scenario are bit far IMO

Good thing none of them went back to being terrorists oh wait they did

Cool. He deserves a trophy. I seem to recall which party controlled congress after the 2008 election.

Enough Democratic Congressmen him on Gitmo. It happens. Just like is happening now (so far) on the Trump promise of ObamaCare repeal.

Trying to redirect from getting schooled earlier in this thread? :)

The issue is that two successive Canadian governments did nothing to bring Khadr back to Canada to ensure that he recieved a fair (and torture free) trial. They allowed him to remain in US custody and be tortured. He plead guilty under coersion just so he could be returned to Canada.

Yes. Precisely. All of this.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Oppressive circumstances? How is that stomach turning PC phrase defined?

That is a little unclear but they did mention sleep deprivation. The threshold for how you can treat prisoners is lower here and they were following Canadian law so that was the decision of the Supreme Court.

So the position is that Canadians tortured another Canadian in US custody at a US facility and that the Americans didn't participate or monitor said torture but the information gleaned was passed on to the non participating non monitoring Americans in the room next door?

The real issue is that a Canadian prisoner was subject to treatment our laws determine as unconstitutional. A government that does that here is going to pay whether we agree or not. To use that "confession" to hold a prisoner for 10 years just added zeroes to the settlement.

Khadr sued the government once he returned to Canada. The government has spent $5 million to date fighting it but it was clear they were going to lose based on our Charter so they settled.

I would say most here are upset but the facts are pretty specific to this case and it's hard to see how it could open the door to a flood of lawsuits. The bottom line is that our government has to follow our laws. If they don't want to do that, then they have to change the laws.