Omar Khadr being sued for $50 million

About time!!!

 

 

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Omar Khadr being sued for $50 million”

  1. William Denis Guest Says:

    A lawsuit against Omar Khadr? Why does Canada continue to jail Omar Khadr? At the time of the incident he was a Child Soldier, shielded from prosecution for reasonable reasons. If I am to believe the charges against him, then he just had more fight in him for squad of U.S. Delta Force.

    • xanthippa Says:

      ‘Child Soldier’ is a legal term with a very specific meaning – one which Omar Khadr does not satisfy.

      While Omar Khadr may have been under the age of majority, he does not satisfy the UN definition of a soldier. Therefore, he cannot have a status under international law as a’soldier’, much less a ‘Child Soldier’.

      In order for any minor who actually happens to be a soldier (which Omar Khadr is/was NOT), she/he hast to be 14 years of age or younger in order to satisfy the UN legal definition of ‘Child Soldier’. Omar Khadr was just a few weeks shy of his 16th birthdy. The last time I checked, that is NOT 14 or younger.

      Omar Khadr has plead guilt to 5 different war crimes. Thus, he is – and always will be – a war criminal, in addition to being a terrorist.

      And as a war criminal, he ought to never see freedom again!

  2. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Regardless of his age, it seems to me that Omar Khadr was a cunning fighter who fought bravely and well against overwhelming odds. If I found myself in combat, I would want men like him at my side.

    But he is not on my side.

    He is my enemy.

    And therefore it is quite legitimate to want to see him dead.

    But to pretend he is a war criminal? To sue him for money?

    These things are petty and cowardly.

    Stand him in front of a firing squad and give him an honourable warrior’s death.

    But don’t call him names and steal his money.

    Canadians have turned into such pussies…

    • xanthippa Says:

      The reason he is being sued for money is because he is suing us, Canadians, for millions.

      For not getting him out of Guantanamo earlier!!!

      It was only subsequent to Khadr filing his suit that his victims and their families filed their suit against him: he should not profit from his criminal activities.

      The UN laws of was were written specifically to ensure that soldiers clearly identify themselves as such: when they do, the UN awards them a number of protections for their actions. This is done in order to protect civilians from being used as human shields by soldiers assuming their dress and hiding among them.

      Yet, that is exactly what Omar Khadr did – he was an enemy combatant who dressed in civilian clothes. Thus, he intentionally endangered women, children and other civilians during a time of war.

      An honourable execution is too good for him!

  3. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    No, Khadr is being sued by the widow of an American soldier who died, and by an American soldier who was blinded, in the battle which lead to Khadr’s capture. These are personal tragedies, but they are casualties of war. Allowing a lawsuit to be filed for casualties of war is repugnant in the extreme. It makes a mockery of justice.

    The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp is a disgrace to America. And allowing a Canadian citizen to remain incarcerated in such a place is a disgrace to Canada. It is quite right and fitting that the Canadian government should face serious consequences for their abysmal mishandling of this situation.

    As a Canadian citizen, fighting against an alliance to which Canada belongs makes Omar Khadr a traitor. That is incontestable.

    But that is the only crime he is guilty of.

    Thus the correct action by the Canadian government would have been to repatriate Khadr to Canada with all due haste, and then try him for treason.

    Khadr’s actions during the battle were acts of war, and not crimes of any kind. The fact that he wasn’t wearing a uniform at the time is of no consequence. The real crime is the UN’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of non-uniformed combatants.

    When fighting against a military of the size, power and sophistication of the massed forces of the alliance that invaded Afghanistan, there is no choice but to rely on stealth. What do you expect the enemy to do… paint targets on their own backs?

    Xanthippa, you argue as though it’s possible to fight a war without endangering women and children and other non-combatants. That has never really been possible, and nowadays, less so than ever.

    But if you want to make an issue out of endangering non-combatants, then no one is more guilty than those who order drone strikes and those who fly them from the comfort and safety of an air-conditioned command post… thousands of miles away.

    In summary, Omar Khadr is a traitor and should be executed as such.

    The rest is just disingenuous histrionics that make us look dishonourable and weak.

    • xanthippa Says:

      CodeSlinger:
      You say: ‘In summary, Omar Khadr is a traitor and should be executed as such.

      The rest is just disingenuous histrionics that make us look dishonourable and weak.’

      That, at least, is something we agree on.

  4. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    This may strike you as a strange segue between topics, but I believe I see a connection between this discussion and the one we recently had about spanking.

    We in the West have become a society of weak-kneed, lily-livered pencil pushers. We abhor violence to an unnatural and unhealthy degree for the simple and shameful reason that we are terrified of it. All the high-sounding moralisms we spout about it are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide our cowardice from ourselves.

    Thus we subject our children to sick psychological tortures so we can tell ourselves that we are too enlightened to employ even the harmless pseudo-violence of a good old-fashioned spanking.

    And we make absurdly exaggerated demonic caricatures out of our enemies, so we can tell ourselves that if they weren’t so inexpressibly evil, we would never resort to violence against them.

    We can easily excuse our most despicable conduct, as long as we tell ourselves that we did it to avoid violence.

    Indeed, many of the most dysfunctional aspects of our society – from our disdain for competition and achievement to our willingness to trade freedom for safety – are metastases of our neurotic fear of violence.

    The more closely I look at how we do things in this genteel, non-violent society we are so inordinately proud of, the more certain I become that a little violence is often the cleaner and more honourable alternative.

    • xanthippa Says:

      CodeSlinger:

      I’m sorry to note that you have as yet to recognize – much less address – the psychological damage done by so called ‘spanking’. Until you fully address the psychological (rather than physical) impact of spanking, we have no common ground to meet on.

      • Juggernaut Says:

        Weak-kneed, lily-livered, demonic caricacture, metastases. You know what route this is going Xan. This is empty rhetoric. Not rhetoric like days of Cicero or anything. Beyond simply being pretentious. It’s literally emotionally-charged propaganda with strange voodoo language sprinkled in to be “edgy” and “provocative”.

        He doesn’t go into specific points either. He just rambles rhetoric and keeps basically throwing shit at the wall until something provocative sticks. I think you won purely on the grounds of being grounded and mature about the subject alongside actually addressing the main points.

      • xanthippa Says:

        Thank you!

  5. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    In regard to spanking, my entire argument rests on the observation that spanking does less psychological harm and more psychological good than the psychological punishments we now use in its place.

    I explained this in some detail in this thread, and every comment I made in that thread addresses some aspect of why this is the case.

    My core points in this regard can be found in this comment, and I cite some rather insightful studies in this comment, which explain other aspects of the issue and provide a wealth of supporting evidence.

    So your claim that I haven’t addressed the matter is baffling, to say the least…

    • xanthippa Says:

      CodeSlinger:

      As I explained, over and over – yes, there are studies showing BOTH that spanking is ‘harmless’ and that is is a psychologically harmful parenting tool. And, as the video that kicked this off exlains, the study that prompted it is the overview of all the material ‘out there’ on this subject, specifically to figure out what types of studies were done, how, how large – and what were the outcomes.

      And yes, it admits that one can find studies to support your point of view.

      But, it also asserts that it is a minority view, with over 90% of the studies showing that spanking does do psychological damage to the children. What was interesting was that one study was done that also demonstrated that the act of spanking their children actually does psychological harm to the parent, preventing healthy attachment to the child.

      I’m sorry, on this topic, you are not correct.

  6. CodeSlinger Says:

    Juggernaut:

    My last comment is somewhat more general than the others for very good reason – I am drawing attention to a common cause underlying two prima facie very different topics which Xanthippa and I have been discussing. This one, and The Science of Spanking.

    All my other comments, in both threads, make much more specific points.

    But even in this last comment, I make the specific observation that we in the West have become cowardly weaklings and I give several specific examples of how this leads to the acceptance of dishonourable and dysfunctional behaviours as social norms in our society.

    Go through the two threads and you will see many very specific and detailed descriptions of such behaviours.

    Then, if you want to refute my points, feel free.

    But you can’t refute my points by refusing to admit that they exist.

  7. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Disagree with me all you want, but don’t claim that I haven’t addressed the issue of psychological harm, when in fact it forms the core of my argument.

    Also, in these days of heavily politicised science, it’s wise to pay close attention to minority views – especially in regard to such issues as global warming, individual rights, gun control, feminism, education, and… child rearing.

    Why? Because the majority view is invariably the politically correct one that furthers the cultural Marxist agenda.

    So yes, I am incorrect – politically incorrect.

    Anyway, I don’t mean to re-open that discussion here, though I’m quite willing to continue it in the other thread.

    I only mean to point out how our neurotic fear of anything even remotely resembling violence leads our whole society down a tragic path of dishonour and dysfunction.

    This is what’s at the root of all the disreputable hand-wringing about Omar Khadr.

    The trumped-up charges of war crimes and the lawsuit against him are blatant abuses of process – which we cravenly embrace because, as a society, we lack the cojones to simply stand him up against the wall and shoot him for treason.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Sorry, CodeSlinger, but you are quite wrong.

      Not incorrect.

      Not politically incorrect.

      Just wrong.

      As for the ‘abuse of process against Khadr’ – it was brought in singly to counterbalance the abuse of the process BY Khadr.

      Certainly, two wrongs do not make a right, but, in this case – the second wrong aims to at least partially neutralize the first wrong.

  8. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Regarding Khadr, then, let’s be clear about who is doing what wrongs.

    By allowing Omar Khadr – a Canadian citizen – to rot in a foreign torture camp (Guantanamo Bay), Canada has demonstrated unequivocally that Canadian citizenship has no value: a foreign power tortured a Canadian, and Canada did not honour its obligation to intercede.

    Omar Khadr could not be more right in holding the Canadian government accountable for its ignoble failure to secure his immediate release from Guantanamo Bay!

    It was bad enough that the Canadian government initially attempted to excuse its own shameful neglect of duty by branding Khadr as a war criminal – using as evidence confessions obtained under the very torture they should have prevented!

    But that didn’t get them off the hook, so now they are setting an egregiously bad legal precedent by allowing a civil suit to treat casualties of war as though they were ordinary civil damages.

    This does irreparable damage to Canadian jurisprudence.

    Just so the Canadian government can get revenge for being shown up as lacking the integrity to stand up for its own citizens.

    All the wrongs were done, and are being done, by the Canadian government.

    Well, all but one. The one thing Omar Khadr is guilty of is treason.

    And this is the one thing they will not try him for – which is another wrong done by the Canadian government.

    The whole thing is so sleazy it beggars description!

    • xanthippa Says:

      CodeSlinger:

      Regarding Khadr being held at Gitmo: he was apprehended as a non-military hostile. Under UN laws, it is perfectly legal for him to be held in detention until the end of the conflict in the region in which he was apprehended. As such, Canada was under no legal obligation to intercede on his behalf: on the contrary, to do so would have been spineless giving in to emotionalism against the rule of law.

      You may argue that the law is a bad law and I might agree with you there – after all, I am no fan of the UN or its governance. However, you are saying Canada had a legal obligation to intercede – and that is factually incorrect. Canadian government was complying with UN laws when it did not intercede for Khadr and if Khadr wants to sue someone over this issue, it ought to be the UN who made these laws, not Canada (who is merely abiding by them).

      Gitmo….

      Gitmo was and is not ‘a torture camp’. It is a ‘club med’ style prison, with all the luxuries of the West and all the Islamic appeasement of Muhammad’s wet dreams. Calling it a ‘torture camp’ cheapens the suffering of all those who have suffered in real torture camps!

      The first thing Islamic terrorists are taught is to make claims of ‘torture’ against their jailers. That is what Khadr is doing – making false claims of torture against his club Med jailers. If you believe he was tortured then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…

      We have video evidence of Khadr building IEDs and training others to do so – so much for the charges against him being false.

      Permitting him to profit from his war crimes is a crime in itself. If there is a legal remedy against it, it MUST be employed to the fullest.

      If the civil suit against him fails, I will advocate starting a class action suit against him on the grounds of causing all Canadians damage to our reputation and mental anguish by his conduct, to ensure he is stripped of his ill-begotten riches which will undoubtedly be used to fund terrorism.

  9. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    I am saying that Canada had a moral obligation to intercede, as well as a legal one.

    The whole problem with Canada’s conduct is that it put some irrelevant UN drivel ahead of its obligation to its own citizen. Now that is spineless! And it’s exactly what makes Canadian citizenship worthless. Canada refuses to act like a sovereign nation and look out for its own people. On what grounds, then, does it demand to be paid taxes?

    You may ask, since Khadr was a traitor, does Canada still have that obligation? I say yes, it does. Canada should have taken the stance that he may be a traitor, but he is our traitor, and we will deal with him according to our laws – so hand him over.

    Now, you have any doubt that torture definitely was, and almost certainly still is, being used at Guantanamo Bay, here’s a short summary of the facts: Torture Techniques used in Guantanamo. These methods are not so crude as to leave any lasting physical proof. Rather, they are diabolically sophisticated techniques designed and carried out by medical doctors and psychologists, as detailed in this article in the Guardian: The dark side of psychology in abuse and interrogation.

    It seems to me that the difference between building IEDs and building Predator drones is mainly a matter of budget. Either they are both war crimes, or neither is.

    Omar Khadr, as I keep pointing out, is a traitor. So… how can a his treason damage the reputation of Canadians? Well, it can’t, of course. What damages the reputation of Canadians is our government’s refusal to try him for treason.

    And as for mental anguish, I can’t imagine how Khadr has caused you any. He certainly hasn’t caused me any.

    What causes me mental anguish is knowing that the Canadian government would rather surrender its sovereignty to a bunch of two-faced stuffed shirts at the UN than stand behind its own citizens.

    • xanthippa Says:

      We agree, CodeSlinger, that Khadr is a traitor.

      Where we disagree is what his actions constituted: I maintain my position that by the nature of what he has done, he had given up any legal AND moral claim to have human rights apply to him.

      As such, even if he were subjected to torture (which I am not ready to believe), Canada would still have no legal OR moral obligation to intercede on his behalf.

      To the contrary: to do so would have been a cowardly submission to Sharia!

  10. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Quite the opposite – not to do so is a cowardly submission to globalism!

    It is a craven surrender of national sovereignty to the UN – which is nothing but a pack of running dogs for the globalists, so the self-serving double-talk it writes into what it arrogantly calls international “law” deserves no recognition of any kind.

    And it is a betrayal of the sine qua non of the social contract: protection of the individual rights of citizens – which most emphatically includes protection from foreign aggression! – in return for their consent to be governed.

    This has nothing to do with Sharia. It’s a matter of the basic definitions of nationhood and citizenship.

    Every nation has a moral and legal obligation to intercede on behalf of all its citizens, whether or not they are suspected – or even proven – criminals.

    And no nation has the right to deprive a foreign national of his rights.

    That is why the correct way for a nation to deal with a foreign national who commits a crime against it is to deport him.

    What the US should have done after capturing Omar Khadr is hand him over to Canada, together with all evidence against him.

    Then Canada should have tried him and found him guilty of treason, because everything else he did was an act of war – self-serving UN attempts to criminalize non-uniformed combatants notwithstanding! – and therefore not a crime.

    Then Canada could legitimately have thrown the book at him, and he would have had no grounds on which to sue. Case closed. Justice done. End of story.

    But that’s not how it happened. The Canadian government conducted itself shamefully, and thereby gave Omar Khadr an excellent reason to sue – handed it to him on a silver platter!

    So now they are trying to sweep that under the rug – in a way that further subverts the foundations of the legal system of this country – by allowing casualties of war to be treated as civil damages.

    And they are throwing around emotionally-charged accusations, hoping to lend credibility to the profoundly evil idea that a government can twist the law to mendaciously target someone, as long as they can make people hate that person enough.

    Having started out handling this situation badly, the Canadian government is making things very much worse with every pusillanimous, dishonourable, self-exculpating step it takes.

    This is a textbook example of why two wrongs don’t make a right!

    But it does have one saving grace.

    It fits the globalist agenda perfectly…

  11. Maikeru Says:

    Firstly, I’m currently wearing a charcoal zippered pullover with black shoulder patches and inner collar. The top serves as perfect interface between my increasingly silver hair and my black/charcoal corderoy stovepipe slacks.
    Grounding is by square-toed lace-up black shoes with cushioned ankle support (a detail more felt than seen).
    Due to a current meat-world project, my fingernails are more redneck than thin-neck, however my habit of shaving just before bedtime helps offset the impression left by unclean fingernails during the day.

    And speaking of unclean fingernails…

    I was drawn to re-examine this discussion from the link Codeslinger attached to the to the current discussion around ‘Baglow v. Smith’.

    When I first read this ‘raw uncensored’ thread, I was content at the time to follow the lines of reasoning expressed by CS and Xan without commenting myself, and I think it likely that many other readers of Xanthippa were similarly inclined.

    I have come to believe that one huge advantage of internet communication is that use of same facilitates a deeper personal awareness of complex issues by allowing the individual easy return to points of discussion relevant to ongoing issues.

    Coupled with that ability is the opportunity to engage keyboard comrades over long time, in points of disagreement which sharpen one’s ability to hone their own thoughts.

    And that brings me to FreeDominion.
    FreeDominion is where folks such as myself, who do not have the wherewithall or discipline to maintain their own blogsites, might introduce and/or engage in frank discussions without fear or favour.

    Where it may be inappropriate to clarify one’s thoughts in physical proximity to others, it is Holy appropriate in cyberspace.

    An inability to be politically forth-coming reflects the increasing reliance on legal litigation to determine the path of moral clarity down which citizens are expected to follow.

    CHRAct Sec 13.1 was proof positive that government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, and those who lament the exorcism of that tragic mistake from Parliamentary dictates must be exposed to broader recognition as the aiders and abettors of tyranny.

    The above observations are offered up as evidence of my eligibility of belonging to any decent Asperger-related blogsite on God’s green earth.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Hi Maikeru!

      If you’d like my job – it’s yours! It sounds like you’ll be able to do a better job at reporting than I…

      By the way – I have to describe what everybody is wearing because Connie’s mother wants to know! And if Connie’s mother wants to knw – I will most certainly oblige to the best of my abilities.

      Plus – people can order the transcripts from the courts – but no the clothing record!

      Maikeru, your input will be welcome here – and, we might even make an honorary Aspie out of you yet!

      • Maikeru Says:

        I doubt that I could do any better job of ‘court-reporting’ than you Xan,, as I didn’t realize the importance of cyber-clothing until you mentioned it…=)
        I think in more musical terms !


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: