@raphjd:

Let's not forget that it's the same Supreme Court that let a woman off for fucking a 14yo boy because she thought he was old enough, even though it was her son's best friend of several years and class mate.

Justice.. is supposed to be blind!

:blink:

When it comes to moonbats… they are not only blind.. but deaf and dumb as well.

Let's not forget that it's the same Supreme Court that let a woman off for fucking a 14yo boy because she thought he was old enough, even though it was her son's best friend of several years and class mate.

Justice.. is supposed to be blind!

:blink:

Ok, so let's assume that Canada does subscribe to the International Red Cross's optional protocol.    Now you have to show that the other countries involved also subscribed to it.  I can tell you that they don't.  Therefore it's not "international law" and has no bearing on the case except to terrorist lovers.

The Canadian Charter has nothing to do with international law and things that happen in foreign countries.  You seem to believe that Canada is the ruler of the world.

In at least 2 cases, the US followed international law by sending back 2 underaged terrorists to Canada.

Even Canada isn't labelling Kadhr a child soldier.

The International Red Cross refers to an OPTIONAL PROTOCOL to raise the age to 18.

Canada subscribes to that "optional protocol." So everything you said after that is worthless, showing you have no clue what you're talking about. That's what's pathetic.

The only part of international law which is regarded in Khadr's case is how it is interpreted by the Canadian Charter. The Charter is the only "law" of significance here, and according to the Charter, 15 is a child. I noticed all your pretty "research" doesn't mention one thing about that.

Canada has a duty to protect its citizen children under Section 7 of the Charter. Knowing this, the Court ordered the government to request his repatriation. A Federal Court of Appeals upheld that order, adding that the violation of Section 7 occurred during Khadr's 2004 interrogation. That interrogation was a process contrary to Canada's international human rights obligations and contributed to Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, something guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter. Nothing you've said changes any of this.

@raphjd:

Canada does not have jurisdiction over it's citizens outside of Canada.

The Charter ALWAYS applies to the participation of Canadian officials in acts later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by the Charter. In this case, there was significant government participation in the illegal process of the deprivation of Khadr’s liberty and security of the person as it applies in the Charter. International law has NOTHING to do with this point.

More than just a jurisdictional question as you've framed it, Canada's requirement to secure a citizen's liberty and security of the person includes interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel in order to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that this youth has been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of those interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors. This goes AGAINST the Charter's standards regarding the treatment of detained youth suspects. Despite your claim, the court HAD THE JURISDICTION and THE DUTY to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the government infringed on the Charter and, where necessary, give specific DIRECTION to the government about the REMEDY. In this case, the courts gave that direction AND remedy to Prime Minister Harper, and he ignored BOTH.

As international law is clearly not your forte, why don't you do some studying on the Canadian Charter instead — Section 7 specifically — and when you're all done we'll see how much of it you're able to understand (although my guess is not much).  :blind:

Even here the UN says that 15yo and up are responsible for their actions, as they are no longer deemed children when it comes to combat.

The Geneva Convention (all 4 of them) only gives specific rights to legal combatants.    "Unlawful Combatants" do not have the same rights as legal combatants.  In fact, unlawful combatants have very few rights.

The International Red Cross does not dictate international law.  They can propose or suggest, but they can not make it.  This is why the they use the term Optional Protocol.  So using them as "proof" of international law is dishonest.

Canada does not have jurisdiction over it's citizens outside of Canada.      No international law allows for this.    They can ask, but if the offer is refused, there is nothing they can do about it, legally anyway.

++++++

Let's recap the story.

Kadhr, under international law, was a legal adult and responsible for his own actions.

He was an unlawful combatant.  As such, his actions were classed as terrorism and war crimes.

He confessed.

As an unlawful combatant, he did not have the same legal rights as a legal combatant.

"Unlawful combatant" are also called "unprivileged combatants" in the Geneva Convention due to the fact that they have very few rights.  They have their basic human rights and the right to be seen by the International Red Cross.  After that, they have almost no other legal rights.

Sending Kadhr to Gitmo was completely legal under international law.  The international Criminal Court, in the Celebici Judgment, set the precedent for this.

The US sent at least 2 under 15yo's back to Canada, in line with international law.

So, what we have here is a Kadhr acting in a completely illegal manner and getting punished for it.    Trudeau, in secret, gives him a $10.5 million taxpayer funded payout for his troubles.

Clearly, Trudeau has more love for self confessed terrorists/war criminals than he does for their victims.

What hypocrisy for an American to start quoting international law about a 15 year old boy when they don't sign up to it themselves and force other countries to agree to not prosecute US soldiers for war crimes.

If you don't want to be the victim of attacks in the middle east, get the fuck out and stop invading them. A US soldier invading another country is fair game. They are not victims of a crime. They are casualties of a war they started.

Sadam brought us into a war in the middle east when he invaded Kuwait.

Bin Laden Brought us into Afghanistan when he attacked the US on 9/11.

Both were approved of by the UN.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".

I am understanding the english quite goodly, Kuthi.

Let me make it clearer for you…
India is supposedly the land of peace and tranquility.. but in fact, it is quite the opposite.  It is a land of whackos, doped up on massive amounts of curry.  in the USA, we sometimes will sprinkle half a teaspoon of curry onto a meal.  In India, half the meal is curry powder - which is addictive - and obviously makes people think in a disturbing, twisted way. 
So, perhaps you should refrain from attacking Americans. 
I don't think much of a country in which their idea of success is to become a doctor that moves to the USA to perform abortions.

What hypocrisy for an American to start quoting international law about a 15 year old boy when they don't sign up to it themselves and force other countries to agree to not prosecute US soldiers for war crimes.

If you don't want to be the victim of attacks in the middle east, get the fuck out and stop invading them. A US soldier invading another country is fair game. They are not victims of a crime. They are casualties of a war they started.

The most hypocritical country by far is INDIA…while they do have nuclear weapons, they also have people walking bareassed down the streets.. hordes of monkeys and rats all over the place being worshipped and fed, houses made out of bricks comprised of human feces and straw,  people pulling bodies out of the river and cannibalizing them, and more political assassinations probably that all other countries COMBINED!    So much for peace, love, and contentment!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1365317/Indias-brutal-history-of-assassinations-and-conflict.html

You know anybody that lives in India Shami94?

If you don't want to be the victim of attacks in the middle east, get the fuck out and stop invading them. A US soldier invading another country is fair game. They are not victims of a crime. They are casualties of a war they started.

@raphjd:

Read my earlier post.   I explain the international law.

It's the Rome Statute that makes 15yo and up responsible for their own actions, under international law.

There you go AGAIN!  Putting actual facts and information into the forum!   Not fair!  The moonbats will be hitting that "Report" button.

The Child Soldier Protocol applies directly to the soldier themselves.    If they are under 15, they are not responsible for their actions.  If they are 15yo and over, they are responsible for their actions.

The Paris Protocol is not part of international law because only a few countries have signed up to it.    As for this thread, it's also after the fact, so it wouldn't apply anyway.

The International Red Cross's Optional Protocol  means nothing because it's a voluntary thing with no backing in the international legal system.  This is same issue with the Paris Protocol.

All the above is why Canada has not labelled Kadhr as a child soldier.  In no way can he qualify as such under international law.

NOTE:   The Paris Protocol of 2007 is not related to the Paris Protocol of 2015 on climate change, which dominates most of Google's fist countless pages.

Read my earlier post.   I explain the international law.

It's the Rome Statute that makes 15yo and up responsible for their own actions, under international law.

There you go AGAIN!  Putting actual facts and information into the forum!  Not fair!  The moonbats will be hitting that "Report" button.

It's the Rome Statute that makes 15yo and up responsible for their own actions, under international law.

@raphjd:

Under international law, he was old enough to be responsible for his actions.

Which international law would that be?  ???

The same question crossed my mind..

Despite the mendacity of your claim, Khadr’s detention was and still is illegal under international law. The law as it deals with child soldiers is described at these three sites. (Feel free to peruse the information found there — for the next time you want to act like you know what you're talking about.)

ANOTHER mistake of yours is blaming Trudeau. By participating in Khadr's detention, it was actually Harper who violated Canada’s own international human rights obligations and Khadr’s Charter rights, not Trudeau. This is how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled more than seven years ago. Even in the face of that ruling, Harper still refused to seek Khadr’s repatriation and instead fought his return. Every other Western country which had prisoners at Guantanamo secured the return of their citizens held there. Canada was the only country which did not do so. Now they are paying the price for that intransigence. Make no mistake: Trudeau may have paid the bill — but it was Harper who incurred the charges.

Stephen Harper and his 9 year regime destroyed the Conservative Party in Canada.  Harper was completely corrupt, and a bumbling asshole.. but people liked him because he looked like Phil Donahue (especially with all the cosmetics he wore) and always had a big smile on his face.

You are using the definition from the Paris Principles of 2007, which is after the fact.

The International Red Cross refers to an OPTIONAL PROTOCOL to raise the age to 18.    They also talk about 15yo soldiers being completely legal.

The Child Soldiers Protocol ….......  also refers to inclusion as a war crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “the conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years or using them to participate actively in hostilities in both international and non-international armed conflicts.  Why is this?  Because "children" are classed those under the age of 15.

I know you're a leftist, but do you really need to try so hard so cuck to terrorists and their lovers?

ANOTHER mistake of yours is blaming Trudeau. By participating in Khadr's detention, it was actually Harper who violated Canada’s own international human rights obligations and Khadr’s Charter rights, not Trudeau. This is how the Supreme Court of Canada ruled more than seven years ago. Even in the face of that ruling, Harper still refused to seek Khadr’s repatriation and instead fought his return. Every other Western country which had prisoners at Guantanamo secured the return of their citizens held there. Canada was the only country which did not do so. Now they are paying the price for that intransigence. Make no mistake: Trudeau may have paid the bill — but it was Harper who incurred the charges.

Under international law, he was old enough to be responsible for his actions.

Which international law would that be?  ???

You are extremely desperate to make him not guilty of being a terrorist and war criminal.    "he was RAPED mentally"

Again, he is a terrorist and war criminal.  He doesn't have the same rights under international law that a jaywalker in his home town would.

Still defending terrorist love Trudeau, I see.  That asshole cares more about terrorists than he does about the victims of terrorists, as this incident shows.

So, if my mom told me to rape and murder babies when I was 15yo, you would fight tooth and nail to keep me from getting punished if I did what she told me.

No one told Khadr to rape and murder babies. From the age of 9 Khadr was told that Americans and Canadians were his enemies.

@raphjd:

comparing willing throwing a grenade at soldiers vs being raped by some old pervert.

Strong evidence shows that Khadr most likely couldn't have thrown that grenade as he was alleged to have thrown. And besides, Khadr was raped — he was raped psychologically by his parents from the age of 9 to the age of 15 — six long years of psychological abuse for which he was powerless to end. The sexual abuse of one child is no different than the physical or psychological abuse of another child.

@raphjd:

Clearly you have no idea how war zones and "police" zones work.

Clearly the Canadian government had no idea how its own Charter works with regards to how prisoners should be kept, or else they wouldn't now be liable for 10 million.

@raphjd:

Trudeau planned it so he would not have to inform Parliament.

Harper was the one who planned it by ignoring the issue for the breadth of his administration. Why didn't Harper address this issue when his policy experts were telling him to do so? Why didn't he allow his diplomats to place pressure on the US to hand Khadr over, even when those same diplomats were warning him that not doing so risked violating the Charter?

Let's see, you are comparing willing throwing a grenade at soldiers vs being raped by some old pervert.    You really are desperate to defend a terrorist and war criminal.

So you are butt hurt that Afghanistan didn't punish him.  Or are you butt hurt that the US didn't cuck to Canada?  Clearly you have no idea how war zones and "police" zones work.  They do not operate under the same legal rules as a locality would if you jaywalked.

Trudeau planned it so he would not have to inform Parliament.    Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot and should be institutionalized.    It's also ignorant that he has more respect for the terrorist war criminal than he does for the victims.    Trudeau has a history that proves the kind of person he is and what his motives are.

According to you, you should always obey your parents.

No, I said it was inevitable that children obey their parents because the deck is stacked against them acting independently. Parents control access to food and shelter, something a child might be deprived of if they don't follow along. The incentive is always for the child to follow a parent's directions, and that should count for something if that child does something wrong at the behest of those parents.

@raphjd:

There is a huge difference between knowing right from wrong as in the case we are discussing, and your parents signing you over to be fucked by some pervert.

Does a child who is sexually abused by an adult have a solid grasp on what constitutes right and wrong in maintaining a healthy relationship? If so, why are they allowing an unhealthy relationship with an adult? You ask "Didn't Khadr know killing was wrong?" Well, doesn't someone being sexually abused know that abuse is wrong? If they do, then why are they allowing themselves to be abused?

It's because they, as children, do not have the power to shape their own destiny when that destiny is being shaped for them by their abusers, sexual or otherwise. Your expectations for a boy raised by two religious extremists as ought to be having solid views on what is right and wrong are way off base here. It's not about knowing the difference between right and wrong — it's about having the power to change your physical circumstances. Sexual abuse victims often don't have that power, and neither did Khadr. Neither of them should be blamed for it.

Khadr was fucked over by religious extremist parents who took advantage of his unwavering love for a mother and father and twisted that love into hatred — all for their own religiously-perverted reasons. Khadr was their victim as much as anyone else. Instead of being liberated from the hell his parents put him through, Americans took him to another hell - Guantanamo Bay - where he was subjected to more abuse for an amount of time equal to almost as many years as he'd been alive (12 years vs. 15 years at capture).

@raphjd:

If I commit a crime in a country, I expect to be prosecuted by that country.

It's precisely because what you just said didn't happen in this case, that Khadr is receiving his "lottery" settlement. As the only military authority in Afghanistan at that time, the US (or if they had deferred in the case, to Canada) should have prosecuted Khadr in a court of law. They never did. They held him for an interminable amount of time and would only release him if he agreed to confess 12 years after the fact.

@raphjd:

I noticed you ignored the other questions surrounding the deal itself, such as why it was done in total secret, why it was done only after Parliament was in recess, etc.

Criticising the deal as "secret" is a non-sequitur, because the Canadian court which made the decision which allowed Khadr to receive a settlement was a publically made decision while the apology that went with it was released to the press.

Your upset because the government chose not to propose the settlement publically beforehand and thereby open it up to public debate. You're very naive if you think governments seek out public criticism on their own. The right of the Canadian government not to consult beforehand with the public over every lawsuit it settles is a longstanding practice and it's no surprise that happened here. If anything should be criticized, it's Canada's Harper government (2006-2015) which carries the bulk of blame for kicking the "Khadr can" down the road for so long. Their inaction years ago leads directly to the monetary settlement we see today.