Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe is my wrong interpretation of rendition...he was not handed to the authorities of a different country, GITMO is run by the US Military and technically Guantanamo Bay is US territory. He was always in US custody and there was nothing "covert" about it.
Maher Arar was indeed renditioned to Syria.
P.S.
I'm pretty sure my original statement still stand, Omar Khadr was technically not a rendition case...the legal experts can chime in.
Semantics are useful sometimes aren't they? Legal experts from what country? Legal experts who have the tendency to re-write the laws as they deem necessary to extract information from prisoners...... those legal experts?
You seem to be arguing solely on the merits of not having the foreign government of that island doing the torturing but U.S. agents and military doing it instead. A rather fragile and corrupt "technicality" to hang your hat upon.
Regardless of the "technicalities" of naming the process by which being flown to a military compound established on a foreign island for the express purpose of making the inhabitants totally inaccessible and held incommunicado to the rest of the world so they could be treated with less than the accepted norms of agreed-upon conventions.....had he not been treated thusly, with Canada's seeming complicity....we'd not be discussing this guy at all. He would instead, have been incarcerated in a military stockade in either Europe or the U.S.; tried with all of the normal access to legal representation of his choosing and perhaps even found guilty and serve his time beside Major Nadal with no questions asked by anyone....ever.
Excerpt "But that cuts both ways. Sympathy for a devil is no better than blame for a scapegoat. As such, Omar Khadr is the ultimate political wedge, now free to speak his own mind in the age of terror."
Khadr killed people, made explosives and is a POS. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that. It's a sad state of affairs in the world when the criminals are the victims, but that's how liberals roll.
We wouldn't be here if the Conservatives hadn't violated his Charter Rights. When governments try not to follow the rule of law, this is what you get.
Well, if you want to speak technically, the US base at Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory. The US just rents it, under a lease agreement, that was agreed upon before Castro took power. It is, de facto, US territory; but it is ultimately, de jure, Cuban territory.
Well, I would compare Guantanamo Bay to any nation embassy in a foreign country....the host country get paid a rent...
We wouldn't be here if the Conservatives hadn't violated his Charter Rights. When governments try not to follow the rule of law, this is what you get.
Except that in my understanding (and it seems Chevy too) there were no laws broken on the part of Canada.....there was nothing Canada could do to in Khadr situation.
Captured in a third country and in custody by the US.....
Semantics are useful sometimes aren't they? Legal experts from what country? Legal experts who have the tendency to re-write the laws as they deem necessary to extract information from prisoners...... those legal experts?
You seem to be arguing solely on the merits of not having the foreign government of that island doing the torturing but U.S. agents and military doing it instead. A rather fragile and corrupt "technicality" to hang your hat upon.
Well semantics sometimes are important. The Khadr case is different than the cases of abduction and rendition mentioned by some newspaper to try to make a comparison.
You cannot compare the Khadr case with, for example, Maher Arar.
Except that in my understanding (and it seems Chevy too) there were no laws broken on the part of Canada.....there was nothing Canada could do to in Khadr situation.
Captured in a third country and in custody by the US.....
What Canada could have done but failed to do, is ask for Khadr to be repatriated to Canada. The Supreme Coirt said Khadr's rights as a Canadian citizen had been violated and that the Canadian government had illegally shared information about Khadr with the U.S. and that Canada should ask for Khadr to be repatriated but that the Supreme Court could not order the Canadian government to do so. The reasoning behind it all is contained in the link. Khadr repatriation overturned by top court - Canada - CBC News
What Canada could have done but failed to do, is ask for Khadr to be repatriated to Canada.
1) The US would have simply ignored the request. Waste of time.
2) Canada had no right to have him back since he was captured in a combat zone in a foreign country and allegedly killed a US soldier. If you commit a crime in a foreign country you have no right to be repatriated...sometimes the host country may allow you to finish the remainder of your sentence back in your country but is not a right.
The only real beef in Omar Khadr case is his mistreatment and his controversial (to some degree) legal case as minor and Canada had no responsibility whatsoever in this. Any request for compensation should have been directed at the US.
Last edited by saturno_v; 07-12-2017 at 02:41 PM..
1) The US would have simply ignored the request. Waste of time.
2) Canada had no right to have him back since he was captured in a combat zone in a foreign country and allegedly killed a US soldier. If you commit a crime in a foreign country you have no right to be repatriated...sometimes the host country may allow you to finish the remainder of your sentence back in your country but is not a right.
The only real beef in Omar Khadr case is his mistreatment and his controversial (to some degree) legal case as minor and Canada had no responsibility whatsoever in this. Any request for compensation should have been directed at the US.
It doesn't matter what the US would have done. What matters is whether Canada tried. if the government could show it had tried, I don't think there is a case. But they gave information illegally to the U.S. and they never tried to get him back. As I understand it, that is the issue.
It doesn't matter what the US would have done. What matters is whether Canada tried. if the government could show it had tried, I don't think there is a case. But they gave information illegally to the U.S. and they never tried to get him back. As I understand it, that is the issue.
So why warrant the outsize compensation?? I'm pretty sure there have been other people that been in a similar situation in the past (jailed abroad) where the government did not do enough to try to get them back....every nation had cases like that.
Khadr large compensation is due to the mistreatment he was subjected to and that is not Canada fault and no government of Canada action would have prevented that.
I do not why intelligence information sharing is "illegal"....it happens all the time.
I think an apology and a reasonable sum would have been a much better resolution.
So why warrant the outsize compensation?? I'm pretty sure there have been other people that been in a similar situation in the past (jailed abroad) where the government did not do enough to try to get them back....every nation had cases like that.
Khadr large compensation is due to the mistreatment he was subjected to and that is not Canada fault and no government of Canada action would have prevented that.
I do not why intelligence information sharing is "illegal"....it happens all the time.
I think an apology and a reasonable sum would have been a much better resolution.
This risk to create a precedent.
I think that the precedent to avoid at all costs is giving the government the idea that they can break the law with impunity. I think some forms of intelligence are shared all the time and it is legal but without having looked into it further, the court found that the particular type of information shared was illegal. It's a complicated and drawn-out case and I don't feel like searching for that information, if it is publicly available. But that would be my assumption. Obviously the first loyalty of any government should be to its citizens, even if one of its citizens does wrong. But then within the parameters of the law, information can be shared and what the court found was that the abuse endured by Khadr violated the Canadian ideal of the law. The government should have done what it could. If that didn't sway the Amercans, then it could at least say it tried.
So while I can't see any good coming out of a troubled young person with PTSD and 10 million dollars, I think that to avoid setting a precedent of the government being above the law, the higher the settlement the better. It's about punishing the government, not about rewarding Khadr.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
