I wonder how drunk Elizabeth May is right now celebrating?

 

6 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What part of a unanimous ruling by the SCoC are you not understanding? That ruling is why he received the payout.

And way to make childish assumptions. Who's "you guys," anyway? I'm shocked you didn't label me a SJW again, albeit erroneously.

When did I label you a SJW the first time?

You're missing a lot here.  You're connecting a separate ruling with the payout.  There was no ruling on the issue pertaining to the payout because the government settled.

EDIT: I erroneously thought your reply was to me.  i see its to KBF.  My apologies.

Edited July 11, 20178 yr by The Unknown Poster

9 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I tire of this argument.  My beliefs are that:

1. Omar Khadr was screwed by his family and they are the real villains in this ordeal.
2. Omar Khadr did not deserve to be held in Guantanamo Bay.
3. Omar Khadr should have been brought back to Canada.
4. Omar Khadr should have been allowed to walk free if it was determined he was not a risk to the Canadian public.
5. Omar Khadr should never have received a rich settlement nor an apology.  He should have been given exactly that which is given to new refugees by the Canadian government and allowed to integrate into society as a new refugee would.
6. Paying a large settlement, under cover of secrecy and outside the rule of law, to a former terrorist (whether as a child or not) is the height of absurdity and a black mark on this government.

And that's all I will say, and no one will change my mind on any of these six points.  I think many people feel the same way I do.

On your fifth point: he's a Canadian citizen. How could he be classified as a refugee?

I agree on your sixth point entirely.

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Solid rebuttal. How thoughtful and mature.

I was hoping to calm you down a bit as you're coming across very emotional and angry.

You're saying there was no point for the government to defend itself in court because a separate ruling didnt go their way.  Not every ruling wa unanimous by the way (a lower court was split on one of them).  The point many are making, which you are ignoring, is the principal behind seeing a legal outcome to its conclusion because you feel it's wrong to pay a convicted murder compensation.

KBF posted a video where the Cons leader explains this perspective.  Its worth a watch.  

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

When did I label you a SJW the first time?

You're missing a lot here.  You're connecting a separate ruling with the payout.  There was no ruling on the issue pertaining to the payout because the government settled.

Pay attention to what (and who) I'm quoting next time.

The highest court in our country unanimously ruled a Canadian citizen's human rights were violated. An appeal was then unanimously shot down shortly thereafter. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2013 based on those rulings. So, what am I missing?

Just now, blue_gold_84 said:

Pay attention to what (and who) I'm quoting next time.

The highest court in our country unanimously ruled a Canadian citizen's human rights were violated. An appeal was then unanimously shot down shortly thereafter. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2013 based on those rulings. So, what am I missing?

Yes, and I edited my post.  Pay attention next time.

Those are two separate legal proceedings.  

7 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

On your fifth point: he's a Canadian citizen. How could he be classified as a refugee?

I agree on your sixth point entirely.

I wouldn't classify him as a refugee, I would just help him get back on his feet in the same way the gov't helps a refugee.  I believe Khadr's case is quite unique and as such he would deserve unique treatment.  I wouldn't want to just bring him back to the country and send him out on his own with no friends or family and very little education.

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I wouldn't classify him as a refugee, I would just help him get back on his feet in the same way the gov't helps a refugee.  I believe Khadr's case is quite unique and as such he would deserve unique treatment.  I wouldn't want to just bring him back to the country and send him out on his own with no friends or family and very little education.

Nice to see someone here is capable of having a reasonable, thoughtful, and mature discussion. Much appreciated.

I get what you're saying but don't really understand how that would work. I'm not sure how refugee "treatment" could be applied to someone who is a Canadian citizen. I also don't know if he was hurting financially to begin with, anyway.

Edited July 11, 20178 yr by blue_gold_84

41 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What part of a unanimous ruling by the SCoC are you not understanding? That ruling is why he received the payout.

And way to make childish assumptions. Who's "you guys," anyway? I'm shocked you didn't label me a SJW again, albeit erroneously.

Instead of going on about childish statements in a lame attempt at obfuscation, why not just answer the question? Or does it hit too close to home? If it was the other way around, and the nutty Khadr family were "Americans" instead of "Canadians", and it was a grieving Canadian widow who got screwed by a decision made by Trump, instead of a grieving US widow screwed over by Justin Trudeau, what would you be saying right now? I use quotes around "American" because if you read about Omar's evil dad, he clearly was using Canada as a country of convenience for launching jihad. He had no interest in building a life here or contributing to our society. If the government back in the days of the other Trudeau hadn't let them in in the first place none of this would have happened.

 

Edited July 11, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan

27 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Nice to see someone here is capable of having a reasonable, thoughtful, and mature discussion. Much appreciated.

I get what you're saying but don't really understand how that would work. I'm not sure how refugee "treatment" could be applied to someone who is a Canadian citizen. I also don't know if he was hurting financially to begin with, anyway.

You're welcome.

34 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I wouldn't classify him as a refugee, I would just help him get back on his feet in the same way the gov't helps a refugee.  I believe Khadr's case is quite unique and as such he would deserve unique treatment.  I wouldn't want to just bring him back to the country and send him out on his own with no friends or family and very little education.

Yes it would be wise to try to deprogram him, otherwise he'll be back lobbing grenades at unarmed US medics or worse, plotting domestic attacks.

The government didn't handle this very well, but the guy was going to get paid no matter what. They should have publicly explained why they felt compelled to pay what they did. Giving an honest explanation would have been much smarter than hiding it and allowing the narrative of "secret payments to terrorists" to take over. I think they made the right decision to pay him, as I agree with others that fighting this out until the end only would have resulted in much higher costs.

Somebody may have touched on this earlier, but why is the widow of the American soldier able to sue for his death?

3 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Instead of going on about childish statements in a lame attempt at obfuscation, why not just answer the question?

What's to be accomplished by playing the what if game? That's the better question.

The optics surrounding this whole debacle are ugly enough without having to switch up the roles, anyway. Like I said, there's plenty of egg on the faces of many a gov't official at the moment. Nothing about this settlement looks good at all. But I also don't think being behind the 8-ball in court would've looked any better.

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're welcome.

Nobody thanked you. Again: try and pay closer attention next time.

1 minute ago, sweep the leg said:

The government didn't handle this very well, but the guy was going to get paid no matter what. They should have publicly explained why they felt compelled to pay what they did. Giving an honest explanation would have been much smarter than hiding it and allowing the narrative of "secret payments to terrorists" to take over. I think they made the right decision to pay him, as I agree with others that fighting this out until the end only would have resulted in much higher costs.

Somebody may have touched on this earlier, but why is the widow of the American soldier able to sue for his death?

The lawsuit was a wrongful death one.  Apparently you cannot sue for acts of war but you can sue for acts of terrorism.  The widow won by defaul as Khadr did not dispute it.

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What's to be accomplished by playing the what if game? That's the better question.

The optics surrounding this whole debacle are ugly enough without having to switch up the roles, anyway. Like I said, there's plenty of egg on the faces of many a gov't official at the moment. Nothing about this settlement looks good at all. But I also don't think being behind the 8-ball in court would've looked any better.

Nobody thanked you. Again: try and pay closer attention next time.

Clearly you were addressing me since I've been among the most level headed people in here, posting thoughts on both sides.  And doing so without the rudeness, snark and insults of others.  So again, you're very welcome, friend.

Edit: if the end result was the widow had her judgement certified in Canada and collected the money, would that not have been better?  This government looked awful in how they made this deal and rushing it through.

Edited July 11, 20178 yr by The Unknown Poster

5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Yes it would be wise to try to deprogram him, otherwise he'll be back lobbing grenades at unarmed US medics or worse, plotting domestic attacks.

And they should absolutely make sure a terrorist who's family has previously financed terror attacks has no way to get his hands on a large sum of money...oh **** 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Describing how you come across is not an accusation.  It's an observation.  I have not been rude to you at all.  You've been very rude.  You should grow up.

EDIT: to be fair, I can't tell if you're emotional.  That was more of an inside joke.  But you do come across angry.  I mean, we're just having a discussion on a sports forum.  Cheers.

Oh, the rich delusion of this comment. I expressed my views, no differently than you did. At no point was I even remotely rude, much less emotional or angry. I merely attempted to explain how I see things regarding this ugly situation that is attracting a lot of the wrong attention at the moment for our otherwise great nation.

As you said, it's a forum. Don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know.

I'll defer to Romeo Dallaire on the subject of casualties of war every day of the week.  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-failed-omar-khadr-compensation-and-an-apology-was-the-right-move/article35623662/ 

1 hour ago, sweep the leg said:

 

Somebody may have touched on this earlier, but why is the widow of the American soldier able to sue for his death?

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-nevada.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/05/us-soldiers-widow-filed-application-to-enforce-134m-claim-weeks-before-khadr-settlement.html

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What's to be accomplished by playing the what if game? That's the better question.

It's actually not the better question.  As you refuse to answer (why am I not surprised), I'll go with my gut here and say "yes", if the roles were reversed, you'd be extremely pissed off at Trump for doing what Trudeau did to that widow.

10 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-lawsuits-nevada.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/05/us-soldiers-widow-filed-application-to-enforce-134m-claim-weeks-before-khadr-settlement.html

$134M? How do American courts come up with these numbers?

WINNIPEG, MB – Since the story broke, Justin Trudeau has been lying about the disgusting $10.5 million taxpayer-funded payment to admitted terrorist Omar Khadr.

First, Trudeau said there was a “process” that was “ongoing,” even though his government was finalizing the payment.

Then, his government tried to blame Stephen Harper, even though rewarding Khadr was a decision entirely made by Trudeau.

After that backfired, they’re trying another lie: Saying a past Supreme Court ruling forced them to pay Khadr.

That’s false.

Supreme Court never gave order to pay Omar Khadr $10.5 million

Previous rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada have not included any orders to pay Omar Khadr $10.5 million. The horrible decision to give him that money is entirely the responsibility of the Trudeau government, and nobody else.

So why is Trudeau lying once again?

He’s seeing the anger of tens of millions of Canadians who are sickened and enraged by this disgusting travesty.

He can’t talk his way out of this one with his “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” BS. So he’s desperately trying to spread blame and responsibility everywhere other than where it truly resides: With him.

He approved the payment to Khadr. He rewarded a terrorist. And he must face the electoral consequences of betraying our country, our allies, and our values.

Justin Trudeau has shown that when the going gets tough, he’ll roll over and cave in to an admitted terrorist rather than stand and fight. Not only has he shown weakness, he also betrayed Tabitha Speer and Layne Morris by giving Khadr the payment before they could fight it in court.

Weakness, betrayal, and dishonesty. That’s what Trudeau has shown by giving Omar Khadr $10.5 million of our tax money.

Canadians will not forgive, and we will not forget.

Sign the Taxpayer.com petition against Trudeau’s $10.5 million Omar Khadr payment

Spencer Fernando, MyToba News

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

It's actually not the better question.  As you refuse to answer (why am I not surprised), I'll go with my gut here and say "yes", if the roles were reversed, you'd be extremely pissed off at Trump for doing what Trudeau did to that widow.

You can assume whatever you want, which seems to be how you operate here. Why am I not surprised you'd continue jumping to conclusions... And why you'd pose a question related to a made-up, silly what if scenario and then not explain why is pretty odd. It's completely pointless as it has nothing to do with reality, and that's why I refuse to play along and answer such a ridiculous question.

Had you bothered to follow along in the first place, even though you're the one who started this thread, I don't agree with paying Khadr anything. I've stated as much more than once in this thread, along with the rest of my views on this situation. And it's got nothing to do with who decided to pay him. I didn't like it when Maher Arar got a similar settlement a decade ago from Harper gov't, either. Instances likes these speak to a systemic problem within the government itself, and it's absurd there are those who choose to use it as a platform upon which to spew partisan rhetoric.

Maybe go see a doctor and get your gut checked.

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The lawsuit was a wrongful death one.  Apparently you cannot sue for acts of war but you can sue for acts of terrorism.  The widow won by defaul as Khadr did not dispute it.

Because he was in Guantanamo... It was a really slimy trick pulled by their lawyers.

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

I'll defer to Romeo Dallaire on the subject of casualties of war every day of the week.  

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-failed-omar-khadr-compensation-and-an-apology-was-the-right-move/article35623662/ 

This an excellent piece- those who are all up in arms about PAYING MILLIONS TO A TERRORIST should give it a good read. 

People forget often that the military Tribunal and legal framework that Khadr was subjected to was experimental and pretty much a sham.

2 hours ago, sweep the leg said:

$134M? How do American courts come up with these numbers?

Good question.  Seems a trifle high.