Reading material for those "irked" by the Kadr settlement

[Loch]

We never should have paid out any money because the people of this country deserved their day in court just as much as Khadr does.

To be clear, the day in court here would be on the issue of whether or not the government can violate our charter rights without consequence. What exactly is the outcome we are hoping for?

[Rylant]

Lawman are you able to answer this? Or anybody else?

In this situation, it is known to have been a combat situation. We know that the American forces dropped bombs on the compound and attacked it with small arms fire, until almost everyone was dead. Literally minutes later, Khadr (the only compound survivor) allegedly threw the grenade which killed Speer. This is not like Speer was killed walking down the street minding his own business. It was a combat situation. You are killing us; we are killing you. How is that possibly a "murder" or "terrorist" situation? How many Afghanis have American soldiers killed? Civillians. Women and children. I happen to know that Americans also can use shady tactics. How many Americans have been charged with "Murder" or "Terrorism" in these same situations? Is it legal for Americans to kill Afghanis, but "murder" and an act of "terror" when the Afghanis kill Americans? I don't get it...

Rylant

[everfeb]

I read this article the other day myself. It does contain a lot of good information, however I wish it came across less combative and less accusing of your ability to be a Canadian if you disagree with this. One thing that I am starting to realize with this case, is that there is tons of information, and a fair amount of it is conflicting. That means that it may be difficult for us to separate fact from fiction. It does bother me when people jump to conclusions without looking into the details. It REALLY bothers me when media outlets distort the facts or are intentially misleading to push their own biased agendas.

I also need to point out, that I truly don't understand the legality of the actual firefight. In a combat situation, Americans killed most everyone else in the compound. Somehow, this is legal. However, after everyone around him has been killed by bombs and small arms fire from the US military, it is somehow illegal and an act of terrorism for the survivors to fight back? I don't get it.

For the record, I believe that he deserves this money. Canada failed him. Not only did Canada not help him, they were complicit with his torture and mistreatment. I hope that he can live out the rest of his days in peace.

Rylant

Well said Rylant. I don't get it either. It's OK for Americans, or for that matter ALL their "allies", to kill as many of their enemies as they want, desire to, or can...It's admired and heroic. But it's not OK for their enemies to kill them in battle. I just don't understand this. Actually, I've come to the conclusion that...If you don't think the same way as the Americans and allies, you are labelled a "terrorist" and are killable (except for Russia and China of course).

[forumname]

Well said Rylant. I don't get it either. It's OK for Americans, or for that matter ALL their "allies", to kill as many of their enemies as they want, desire to, or can...It's admired and heroic. But it's not OK for their enemies to kill them in battle. I just don't understand this. Actually, I've come to the conclusion that...If you don't think the same way as the Americans and allies, you are labelled a "terrorist" and are killable (except for Russia and China of course).

Remember, our terror is good terror!

[als_revenge]

I am no law man, and I am not stating an opinion either way.

But do a general google search using the terms "lawful enemy combatant" and "unlawful enemy combatant." These terms are defined in United States law. My belief is that according to United States law, Kadr was an "unlawful enemy combatant" and therefore (under US law) the rules of war do not apply to him.

To sum up simply crudely: a lawful enemy combatant is somebody that is in the army (or whatever) of a state that is engaged in hostilities against the United States. An unlawful enemy combatant is somebody that engages in hostilities against the US and is not part of a specific countries military; unlawful enemy combatant also specifically includes members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[Chuk]

To be clear, the day in court here would be on the issue of whether or not the government can violate our charter rights without consequence. What exactly is the outcome we are hoping for?

With all due respect this a very myopic view of an extremely complex situation. Just read through the rulings and you can debate each and every decision and its meaning.

Thank you again to lawman for posting the information he did, but be honest, they were summaries of legal decisions that even in his words "left it to the government to how to best respond to the judgment." They did respond.

Canada is a liberal country with a very liberal media, so we are constantly fed the same information and given the same opinions. Look around carefully regarding this case. There are many opinions that do not feel that Khadr was wronged, many that feel he is a murderer and a terrorist and if you don't think that matters, you are wrong. The court case, if followed through on would have given a legal opinion to exactly who was responsible, for what and how much retribution should be paid.

In my experience in Toronto, if you disagree with the view of the left you are a racist, fascist or unCanadian. Just ask almost any of the major media or newspaper outlets.

I resent the views on this forum that assume Americans are evil, just as I hate posts that assume Muslims are terrorists. The fact is that we live in a world where there are no black and white issues, and we need to be open to all opinions to understand one another. If we believe that American soldiers and Al-Qaeda soldiers are the same, that the US and terrorists are equally Good/evil, then there is a problem with us. As a Canadian, do you really believe this? Rylant?

Finally I would have expected that any action on an issue of this magnitude would have at least been debated in Parliament, (or to allow for consensus as in the Arar case), instead of being debated in the media. Because all we have now is a big pile of BS.

I have been a part of these forums for a long time. I consider myself a well educated, traveled and read Canadian, with a belief that people are inherently good. I have seen some really bad things in my time and I think people need to understand how their opinions can hurt others, especially when they are ill conceived.

[Loch]

The fact that we hold different opinions and are able to express them is one the freedoms granted by the Charter for which I am appreciative.

That said, I don't appreciate being called myopic...

[Atomic Wedgy]

Thanks for keeping the debate civil lads. I really appreciate it. In my opinion, political debates have no place in a fantasy hockey forum. They only lead to misunderstandings and hard feelings. I hope you all recognize this and avoid the obvious end that the debate might take. So far everyone has been playing very nicely. So thank you very much for keeping it a good discussion.

[Rylant]

With all due respect this a very myopic view of an extremely complex situation. Just read through the rulings and you can debate each and every decision and its meaning.

Thank you again to lawman for posting the information he did, but be honest, they were summaries of legal decisions that even in his words "left it to the government to how to best respond to the judgment." They did respond.

Canada is a liberal country with a very liberal media, so we are constantly fed the same information and given the same opinions. Look around carefully regarding this case. There are many opinions that do not feel that Khadr was wronged, many that feel he is a murderer and a terrorist and if you don't think that matters, you are wrong. The court case, if followed through on would have given a legal opinion to exactly who was responsible, for what and how much retribution should be paid.

In my experience in Toronto, if you disagree with the view of the left you are a racist, fascist or unCanadian. Just ask almost any of the major media or newspaper outlets.

I resent the views on this forum that assume Americans are evil, just as I hate posts that assume Muslims are terrorists. The fact is that we live in a world where there are no black and white issues, and we need to be open to all opinions to understand one another. If we believe that American soldiers and Al-Qaeda soldiers are the same, that the US and terrorists are equally Good/evil, then there is a problem with us. As a Canadian, do you really believe this? Rylant?

Finally I would have expected that any action on an issue of this magnitude would have at least been debated in Parliament, (or to allow for consensus as in the Arar case), instead of being debated in the media. Because all we have now is a big pile of BS.

I have been a part of these forums for a long time. I consider myself a well educated, traveled and read Canadian, with a belief that people are inherently good. I have seen some really bad things in my time and I think people need to understand how their opinions can hurt others, especially when they are ill conceived.

Here is what I believe. Like you, I believe that many things aren't as simple as black and white. I believe that calling Khadr a "convicted murderer" or "terrorist" is uninformed or misleading. I believe that many people are coming to that conclusion without trying to get to know the specifics of the case. I believe that many news agencies (Hello Sun) are being disingenuous and more concerned with their own agendas, than reporting the truth. I believe that the presence of allied forces in Afghanistan is not a good idea, and it probably makes the situation worse, not better. I believe that American soldiers have been guilty of shady tactics in combat situations. I believe that terrorism is a huge threat and needs to be taken seriously. I believe that, IF the Americans have set up a situation where it is completely legal to kill any suspected terrorist in foreign lands, and it is illegal and "murder" or an act of "terrorism" for these people to fight back including self-defence situations, then that is wrong. I believe that the existence of Guantanamo Bay is shameful, especially when you take into consideration that it is very intentionally NOT on American soil so that they can bypass the rights that are normally afforded to those individuals. I believe that torture in all cases is wrong; it has been shown to be an unreliable method of extracting information, and is inhumane. I believe that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial, in all cases. I believe that there is a such thing as shitty Canadians, however I firmly believe that even they deserve the protection and the rights of all Canadians.

When you look at all of my beliefs here, I imagine it is not difficult to to see why I think that Khadr was horribly wronged, and deserves this money. I have no problem with anybody who disagrees with me, however I know many people who think I am wrong, but haven't taken any time to look into the circumstances surrounding the case. If you are going to be passionate about these types of debates, I think you have a responsibility to be informed.

Rylant

[Chuk]

Hey Loch. I just meant the specific sentence and question was too narrow. Not you or your opinion, sorry, I thought I worded it that way originally.

[Chuk]

When you look at all of my beliefs here, I imagine it is not difficult to to see why I think that Khadr was horribly wronged, and deserves this money. I have no problem with anybody who disagrees with me, however I know many people who think I am wrong, but haven't taken any time to look into the circumstances surrounding the case. If you are going to be passionate about these types of debates, I think you have a responsibility to be informed. Rylant

Thankfully I am not "many people". Not agreeing with you does not make me ill informed. Just to confirm, I am well informed.

Rylant, my guess is that most (70%?) of our opinions are the same, especially the ones that cover Canadian rights and responsibilities. Like you I am quite comfortable with my opinion and have no expectation of people agreeing with me or conforming to my ideas. Your global opinions are actually the "norm" here in Canada, and can be found in most publications and news broadcasts on a daily basis. Canadian Poli Sci 101.

I am sure that you would agree, we as Canadians are free to choose what to read and what to believe. You mention "the Sun" specifically, which is known as the only "right wing" major newspaper in the country. You believe that they report their own agendas (not the truth) but the Star, Globe, Post are different? I have always found it is much more difficult to present a dissenting opinion to the masses.

We do not agree with the details of this case, such as, On October 25, 2010 Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying. Later he was also ordered to pay $134 million in restitution by a Utah court.

We also do not see the US as the same. I do not agree with labeling our closest ally as evil or killers.

For the record: I believe that Khadr likely would have won a case against the government if they had let justice play out. I am not sure of the settlement or the details that would be exposed, but that the Canadian governments complicitness (sp?)in this case was wrong. I think we, as Canadians, deserved more than what we got.

To Atomic Wedgy: The debates here are always done quite well, but the community sets a pretty high standard. Plus we are the best country..soooo.....

Besides, I WON MY DRAFT LOTTERY LAST NIGHT!!!!!!! So I will likely start to allocate more time to hockey. I am going Nico right?

[LawMan]

1- The Charter rights of Canadians do not extend to foreign countries; citizens must comply with the laws of the country where they travel.

The statement "citizens must comply with the laws of the country where they travel" is true. I disagree with your statement "The Charter rights of Canadians do not extend to foreign countries". In the 2nd SCC case the SCC was very specific in saying that in certain cases the Charter rights extend to citizens located in foreign jurisdictions and that when the Canadian government knew that Khadr was facing treatment that did not meet the standards set out in the Charter, it had a duty to do something about it. Thus, in certain instances, a Canadian citizen?s Charter rights extend even if those citizens are in a foreign country under the control of a foreign government.

2- The death of Christopher Speer occurred in 2002, the firefight that Khadr confessed to murdering him with the IED. I do not bring this up to debate the value of teh confession, but I wanted to "start at the beginning" only to show that it was actually the Paul Martin Government, with the high-horsed Ralph Goodale in cabinet, that could have repatriated young Mr. Khadr and avoided all this history, if it felt that US was not acting appropriately. Furthermore I think Mr. Goodale's time to "save the government money" had long passed and it was likely in the best interests of the Canadian people to hear what a civil case would have determined the value and merits of this case were.

Agreed. The Chretien/Martin government could have immediately requested repatriation, especially upon Khadr being sent to Guantanamo, they did not. I am on record as saying all of the governments in power from 2002 to 2012 (IMO) failed Khadr. This is not a Liberal (party) v. Conservative (party) thing, both failed, both are culpable.

3- the 2008 case was resolved by the government handing over information.
4- the 2010 case was resolved by the government asking for Khadr to be repatriated.
5- the 2015 case was relatively insignificant.

The Charter violations were remedied in these cases by taking the actions you stated. However the damages for the violations were never quantified because again, it was not of importance to Khadr at the time. If a party does not seek a remedy (money) the courts will not direct its mind to hypotheticals. This is not to say the various violations did not cause damages. The Canadian government could have requested Khadr be repatriated to Canada in late 2002, where he could have served time in a Canadian prison while the legal matters were unfolding. Maybe the government would have been rejected by the Americans, if the request was granted what?s 10 years of time in Guantanamo v. Canadian prison worth??

6- we agree that no court has indicated what the penalty should be for the various violations that are mentioned in the above rulings.

Agreed.

I reject the association with the Maher Arar case because he was pulled off an airplane and falsely convicted on the information provided by the RCMP at the time. The RCMP played a pivotal role in his conviction, which is completely different than Khadr, an armed assailant in a military zone. Furthermore, the apology to Arar came by way of a both an official government statement and a unanimous House of Commons resolution.

They are not identical but are indeed similar. Both situations saw a Canadian citizens Charter rights breached by the Canadian government who aided in the breach. Arar?s resolution was unanimous after it was discovered he was in no way related to terror. The Conservatives maintain the position that Khadr is not owed an apology nor would it pay out if in power so a unanimous resolution is no possible.

NOW....The present settlement was political, serving no one and especially not our charter. A back, door out of session, cheque writing session on the heels of an injunction that prevents the Speers family from collecting on their $134 million settlement in a Utah court.

I will disagree with your statements here. The government acknowledged the Charter violation, which was the right thing to do IMO. I believe the government issuing an apology was the right thing to do and did serve our Charter and Canadians.
The Trudeau government had the benefit of 3 SCC cases stating the Government actions were wrong and the benefit of hindsight and more thorough reports. Given the information available to Trudeau et al I believe issuing the apology was the right thing to do. Further, the government (IMO) saved millions which again IMO is a valid consideration when ultimately it is tax payer money being spent. The government is the custodian of the Canadian purse, limiting damages to be paid from that purse is a valid purpose for taking action.

Further, the Speer judgment has many of its own issues. Best I can tell it was a default judgment in civil court and Khadr was never served notice of the judgment nor allowed to defend it. The judgment came at a time when he was detained at Guantanamo so again, defending a civil claim was not high on his list of things to do.

I will be very interested to see how the Speer family proceeds going forward. The family would require the Alberta Courst (where Khadr lives) to recognize the Judgment. Generally this would not be an issue from an American court however given the uniqueness of the case, and the fact that the case likely would not have been successful in Canada there will likely be a lengthy debate about whether the Alberta courts will recognise the Judgment.

The Canadian government's history around right violations rewards are actually much smaller than any of the numbers surrounding this case. The larger numbers are primarily due to court costs and legal fees as opposed to settlements.

Agreed, this is the largest settlement to a single individual I am aware of. The settlement is ?all in? so any legal fees Khadr has are deducted from the total. How much Khadr will ultimately recover I am not sure.

I cannot point to a reported case and say "this is why he's getting $10.5m". I am relying mainly on the numerous legal scholars I have seen quoted in media who generally state Khadr would have gotten more than that at trial.

Where are we now:

No one knows what exactly happened in the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. The confession of Khadr should not be accepted, based solely on the fact that Canadian personnel chose to question him in Guantanamo instead of bringing him back to Canada to be tried. This is the only incident that the government can be clearly called out for. He was 15, not entitled to protection of the charter, as he was charged by the US, but we as Canadians should have demanded it.

opinion time:

We as Canadians should have demanded that a trial took place here to determine whether Khadr was a guilty of murder or not.

Perhaps, I?m not sure on what grounds the Canadian courts could have taken jurisdiction to try Khadr for murder. Treason may have been a better option. IMO even if the option existed it would have been a bad idea to charge Khadr with anything. Given the facts. The case required to prove Khadr killed Sgt Speer to a Canadian court standard are not there IMO. Regarding spying and treason, I believe these charges would fail as well specifically his age when taken overseas is considered (8 or 9) would make establishing the mens rea (mental element) of any criminal charge would have been an uphill battle to prove.

We never should have paid out any money because the people of this country deserved their day in court just as much as Khadr does.
The settlement is neither pragmatic or correct. Correct would have been allowing the legal process its due course. This is politics.
You cannot argue that we as Canadians or the Canadian government have violated the charter and were circumventing justice, and then summarily cut a cheque to "save money". No. Not right.
If a court give him 5, 10, 20 or 30 million, the fact would be that we ALL as Canadians woudl have had our day in court, been legally represented and kept the politics out of a fundamentally necessary process, that we as Canadians deserve.

I disagree for the reasons listed above but understand your desire to have a "day in court". I don't know that it would quiet the rhetoric. Eventually Khadr would (IMO) win in the courts which would lead to a payout and the same rhetoric around ?paying a terrorist? and add in the rhetoric of ?the Courts don?t give justice we're paying a terrorist" which I currently see. This is the rhetoric I heard around the SCC when they were released. In my experience those people who "want their day in court" are only satisfied if when that day comes, they win in court.

Again I believe a government admitting to a previous wrong in the right thing to do. It is "political" in a sense that is changing the official position of the government. IMO Defending actions at all cost is not ideal practically or legally.

[Chuk]

Just awesome. I would rep you again but I cannot at this time.

My hope was that this would extend to court so that the decision would be legal and not political.
Now it seems we have most Canadians agreeing with Rylant's (Canadian/Altruistic) views on the world, but sharing my disdain towards the specific Khadr decision and payout.
At least if the court had done in we would have had precedents set for what we can all agree on is a very grey area.

Much respect for you input and opinion Lawman. Really impressed.

But as I said, i won my lottery, so do I move the #1 (Nico) and Montour for Pasta and Reilly?

[Rylant]

Thankfully I am not "many people". Not agreeing with you does not make me ill informed. Just to confirm, I am well informed.

Rylant, my guess is that most (70%?) of our opinions are the same, especially the ones that cover Canadian rights and responsibilities. Like you I am quite comfortable with my opinion and have no expectation of people agreeing with me or conforming to my ideas. Your global opinions are actually the "norm" here in Canada, and can be found in most publications and news broadcasts on a daily basis. Canadian Poli Sci 101.

I am sure that you would agree, we as Canadians are free to choose what to read and what to believe. You mention "the Sun" specifically, which is known as the only "right wing" major newspaper in the country. You believe that they report their own agendas (not the truth) but the Star, Globe, Post are different? I have always found it is much more difficult to present a dissenting opinion to the masses.

We do not agree with the details of this case, such as, On October 25, 2010 Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying. Later he was also ordered to pay $134 million in restitution by a Utah court.

We also do not see the US as the same. I do not agree with labeling our closest ally as evil or killers.

For the record: I believe that Khadr likely would have won a case against the government if they had let justice play out. I am not sure of the settlement or the details that would be exposed, but that the Canadian governments complicitness (sp?)in this case was wrong. I think we, as Canadians, deserved more than what we got.

To Atomic Wedgy: The debates here are always done quite well, but the community sets a pretty high standard. Plus we are the best country..soooo.....

Besides, I WON MY DRAFT LOTTERY LAST NIGHT!!!!!!! So I will likely start to allocate more time to hockey. I am going Nico right?

Congrats on the Draft Lottery!

Chuk, I hope that you don't think for one second, that I consider you uninformed on the subject. My statement suggesting that a lot of people who are opposed to the Khadr settlement are not informed
is based on my experience. Certainly, I have nothing but respect for people who take the time to become informed and them come to a different conclusion than me. I have a problem with people who are jumping to this conclusion without taking on any of the information out there. I was literally screamed at the other day by an aunt of mine having this discussion with some family members of mine. She vehemently opposed the decision. After this tongue lashing, I realized that my aunt was not aware that Khadr was 15 at the time, that the firefight happened in Afghanistan, that he was held at Guantanamo Bay from 2002 to 2012, that he was tortured, or that Canada was complicit with these events. All she knew, was that he was a "murderer" and a "terrorist" and how dare Trudeau pay 10 million to such an animal.

My opinion of the Sun is based on the fact that they continually label Khadr a terrorist and a convicted murderer without ever mentioning the specifics of the confession or conviction. I think that most agree that there is a lot of grey area around the circumstances. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that he may have not had a fair trial. If you never mention that his guilty plea was coerced or that he was offered "Plea guilty and return to Canada, or continue to be tortured at Guantanamo for an indefinite amount of time", I think that changes the substance of the conviction. If you never mention that the United States Supreme Court struck down the tribunals as being unconstitutional on the grounds that its structure and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention, I think it changes the substance of the conviction. Part of responsible journalism is reporting all of the facts. I think that when the Sun leaves out these details, it is intentionally trying to be misleading.

As far as the 134 million ordered in the civil suit by the Utah court, it was uncontested. The reason it was uncontested, is because Khadr was still in prison. How can he contest it if he is in prison? I don't think it will hold up.

As far as the US being "Evil", I don't think that they are. I think that it would be na?ve to suggest that they have never engaged in questionable tactics before, though. They have killed civilians and tortured people before. Even though I think that terrorism is reprehensible, I am not sure the line between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is as clear and set as many people see.

Rylant

[forumname]

This isn't relevant to the conversation, but I've been getting quite a few reputation comments where people seem to think the original post was my own writing. I just wanted to reiterate that it was merely something I came across online and pasted in. Not my own words, and I didn't mean for it to come across that way.

Okay, continue.