Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court award the settlement??

I think its bullshit too, and I get that it's cool to bash on the government, but let us not be misinformed here.

Yes, the government -- which I guess is synonymous with Trudeau now -- is giving it to Khadr, but it was ordered by the Supreme Court.

This article is slightly less biased:
Here?s why Omar Khadr is getting $10M from the Canadian government | Globalnews.ca

While it's controversial (and horseshit, IMO) that a shitbag of a human being is being awarded taxpayers $$$, let's not let misinformation shape our opinions. Look what's happening down south.

Ummm yeah Conrad Black was a Canadian citizen until 2001 when he renounced his citizenship in order to join the British House of Lordes.

Since 2001 he has not formally applied for his Canadian citizenship to be reinstated.

YOU ARE FAKE NEWS

how many bombs and guns can you buy with 10 million?
whats to say this money is not sent back to the middle east?

i've been researching this a bit, and it turns out his confession was extracted under torture, so who knows if he actually did blow that guy up

How else can you deal with these savage individuals?

Should we have offered him some hummus and tea while saying "please tell us the truth, Omar".

You have people cutting other's heads off on camera, and suddenly we're the bad guys?

Finally, why should someone who proclaims a belief in Sharia law be supported by laws of a nation that they're fighting against?

FailFish

Good read here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_K...ht_and_capture


While in US custody he was shown a picture book and pointed a finger at Canadian Maher Arar who was being detained at a US airport. Maher Arar was then sent to a black ops site in Syria and tortured. He was later released and the Canadian government apologized and gave him 10.5 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_....27s_rendition

We have laws in Canada for a reason.

uhhh...what? are you actually retarded?

did i make any statements regarding the moral justification or legality of torture?

i simply stated that confessions extracted while someone is tortured are inaccurate and often erroneous. my claim is backed by the science, for example:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...till-doing-it/

jesus, you are some kind of stupid

nope.
If I was I would have been able to bring myself down to your level.

What was the point of your reply then?
Post count bump?

Wanted to be part of the conversation like some clown in the background that hops in with something inane like "I like puppies too".

Face it, your reply had about as much substance as badhobs nutsack after a long jerkoff session.

Get it right tough guy, your claim is backed by a single "theory".
The article you posted said itself, and I quote.....

Quote:

Controlled studies on the effectiveness of torture would be morally abhorrent.

Science is based on controlled study. But if you're unable to have controlled study, you're left with a theory. That's not science, it's opinion. Just like those who say torture works.

You're the one who posted a link that contradicts your own reply, yet I'm the stupid one?

Since you can't formulate a proper reply without throwing insults, I'll make this easy for you to understand.

my dick ======D :showbutt: your mom's ass


Have a nice day.

jesus christ, its almost comical how dumb you are. i don't know whether its the severe inbreeding or syphillis or whatever, but let me preface this in simple terms that even you may understand

1) omar's confession extracted under torture
2) torture proven to extract false confessions
3) so who knows if omars confession was true.

your reading comprehension is simply reprehensible, lemme outline a simple quote from the article

in what way is any of this contradictory to the statement i posted originally lmao

even people who have tortured others have admitted it does not work:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017...re-doesnt-work

All arguments aside, torture is largely seen as an ineffective means of extracting accurate and truthful information. Moreover, trained interrogation professionals have other tactics at their disposal instead of inhumane techniques that only serve to embolden a prisoner or make em say bogus intel.

Edit: In light of you and Sid's ongoing quarrel, I want to post some links to academic journals on this topic. But, it won't let me link em unless you have access to the database. Need to figure out another way to post em.

O'Mara himself states that
the only two comments there that have any merit are "ineffective" and "unpredictable". Whether or not it's pointless is moot, while one's moral views should not be taken as rule of law because we all have different moral compasses.

I would like to guide you to an article that states how and why torture works.


Btw, tell your mom to top up the pre-paid cel she bought me so I can facetime the bitch after dark.

Don't bother.
You're not going to change my mind, just like I'm not going to change that other guy's mind.

It comes down to what you're willing to tolerate as a person. You may feel that we can rehabilitate Paul Bernardo, whereas I would like to see him cut into little pieces and fed to dogs. Therein lies the issue. I am totally okay with cutting the fingernails off of a terrorist, and I'm sure if you could go back in time and torture someone to stop the London terror attacks, that you would feel the same way.

From your article
LMAO you're so stupid that it hurts. you're confusing arguments and posting things that aren't even related to the original statement which is that torture doesn't produce reliable information or confessions. there was no discussion at all on morality or legality

the morality and legality part of which you went off on some unrelated tangent. perhaps those countless hours spent poring over dr seuss one day will pay off.

Here is a list of multiple scientific articles that state how ineffective torture is at obtaining information

https://journalistsresource.org/stud...search-says-no

i dont know why you keep posting in this thread just to keep continuously getting rekt lmao, you haven't produced on salient point yet.

That's not science..... It's the opinion of a former CIA director.
And if torture didn't work, then why was it (and currently is) being practiced by the following countries?

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, France, Guatemala, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Lebanon, Nigeria, North Vietnam, Palestinian Territories, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Spain, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Kenya, Northern Ireland, United States, Uzbekistan

Why did Brazil bother developing new technologies for torture?

Don't get me wrong, torture is disgusting.
But so is terrorism, and if torture helps to protect our people, then I'm all for it.

Funny thing is it does not work. We had a Canadian sent to Syria because of a false confession to be tortured. What did they learn after torturing him? Nothing because he was not a terrorist. Then we had to pay him 10.5 million.

That list of countries does more against your point than for.

Also, if you do not see the massive hypocrisy in your last statement, then...:heckno:

The thing is, you should probably have proven that someone is a terrorist before cutting their fingernails off, not 8 years later.

First let me ask, what do you mean by "our people"?

I'm not following you, is the list of countries you mentioned supposed to be role models that we should look up to?

The point here is not whether torture is ethical or morally correct, it's that it produces unreliable confessions.

Say you got kidnapped and taken somewhere, and waterboarded/burned/sleep & food deprived/whatever else they do. The guy who's doing it says, just say you were the one who killed this guy and it stops. Otherwise it keeps going. What are you going to do?

Everyone breaks in the end, whether or not they are guilty. You will say anything they want to hear just to make it stop.

That's the point

hypa just wants to make sure fight club never dies

How about we look at how much the Government spent defending themselves against the Lawsuit put forth by this guy?

Berz out.

^
We're always bitching about the justice system in Canada. How they let murderers walk after 3 years of time served, with civil forfietures are happening over everything from growing dope to speeding.

How did his case even make it to the supreme court?

The Conservatives would have still been fighting this case because they believed in a Canada that protects it's citizens. I know how I'm voting in 3 years, and it won't be Liberal.

Khadr's father was an absolute piece of shit too. The elder Khadr, later identified as a key lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, who would die in a firefight with Pakistani security officers in 2003, was under arrest in Pakistan in connection with the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad.

I'm a firm believer that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree..... but hey, this is Revscene so let's give him the benefit of the doubt, eh?

here ya go... a good quality post off my FB feed: (not my content)




Okay, I'm fucking sick of the idiocy and done with writing a diatribe every single time a friend posts about how they're upset that Trudeau is giving a terrorist $10m. You people are.... wilfully ignorant and hypocritical. Here's why. (And I thoroughly suggest reading the entire post. If you know me, you know I'm neither stupid, nor an apologist. I am pure fucking science, and this post is such. Read it before making an ass of yourself by posting about how we just gave a terrorist money).
The story (the facts we know).
* Canadian born Khadr was taken to Afghanistan at 15 years old, by his father. We don't know if he wanted to go, and we don't know why they went. There has been zero evidence put forth to suggest the trip had anything to do with terrorism. Regardless, as he was only 15, he had no choice in the matter.
(EDIT: He was actually taken to Afghanistan at 9 years of age. He was taken to Gitmo at 15)
* Khadr was found in critical condition following a firefight. The mission debrief report filed by the US troops stated that a middle aged man threw a grenade, which killed one US soldier. The grenadier was shot in the head and confirmed killed.
* Khadr was taken to Guantanamo Bay prison. No charges were filed against him at that time.
* Several years later, formal charges were filed. These charges were technically not even charges of war crimes, as if they were true, Khadr would be considered an enemy combatant during a time of war, and thus everything he was accused of doing, was legal under rules of engagement. He was denied access to a lawyer at this point and no trial date was set. He was held in detention and tortured for nearly 10 years.
* Nearly a decade later, an addendum to the original mission debrief was submitted, which identified the grenadier as Khadr by name. The description was updated to match that of a 15 year old Khadr. The original report was not rescinded. No one knows who made the addendum. No US personnel present during the firefight confirms the addendum.
* A week later, Khadr is offered a plea deal. The terms of the deal were to admit guilt to all charges and serve a few more years in a Canadian prison, or refuse to admit guilt and be denied trial indefinitely.
* Khadr takes the plea deal, is transferred to Canada.
* Khadr sues the Canadian government for their involvement in his illegal detention, torture, and lack of a trial.
All of the above is true as far as anyone knows. That is the official story, from both the Canadian and US governments. They have said straight out that Khadr would not be offered a trial unless he took the plea deal. Just let that sink in for a moment.
Now let me ask you a question.
As a Canadian, what do you stand for? Do you believe that you, as a Canadian, have the right to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty, as well as the right to a fair and quick trial? I know this is hard for many of you to consider without jumping to "oh, but he's a terrorist, so fuck him, he's a traitor and doesn't deserve anything", but we'll get to that in a minute. Seriously consider this. Do you believe you have, as a Canadian, the inalienable right to everything laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
If you do, but still think Khadr does not, because he is a terrorist, let me ask you; "How do you know he is guilty?" There was no trial for 10 years, and he was only offered a trial on the condition that he plead guilty. How do we, as Canadians, determine guilt? Have you read and understood the Chart of Rights and Freedoms? It's entire purpose is precisely to ensure that what happened to Khadr, is not allowed to happen. Period.
Now I know many of you still can't get past the "but he's a traitor so he doesn't deserve a trial" even though neither you, nor me, nor the US or Canadian government were able to provide ANY evidence whatsoever, of his guilt (no evidence was submitted during his trial, presumably because none exists), but that doesn't matter. Let me explain the problem to you.
You are worried that terrorists are trying to take away your freedoms as a Canadian right? They're trying to force Sharia law upon us and we as Canadians, won't stand for that right?
Do you see where I'm going here? Presuming Khadr's guilt, with no evidence and without trial, is precisely what the terrorists want to do to Canada. Isn't that your concern? Does it not strike you then, that by saying that Khadr doesn't deserve a fair trial because he is a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence, nor a trial to prove the charges, that you are doing precisely what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do do us? A presumption of guilt, no trial, a decade of detention and torture. Is that not Sharia law?
At this point, I don't think any of us should even be concerned about Khadrs innocence or guilt. He is inconsequential at this point. The REAL concern for all Canadians, is that our government denied a Canadian citizen his inalienable rights, guaranteed to him under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They did EXACTLY what you are worried the terrorists are trying to do. If Khadr was guilty, a trial probably would have proven such, so why was he denied a trial?
For your information, the Canadian government did not simply offer up an apology and $10m for no reason. They were sued. The Canadian Supreme Court found in favour of Khadr, in that the Canadian government was in breach of Canadian and International law. That money will mostly be covering his legal fees. But here's where you should be more concerned about the money. The Canadian government spent $120m of your money, defending itself for committing what is legally, war crimes. Seriously. Your government, was just successfully sued, for war crimes. Crimes they committed not only against Khadr, but against the entire Canadian public. They assured us that we would all be given a fair trial, but now we know that is not true. They assured us that we will always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We know that is not true. They took your money, money which could have been spent on building half a hospital or something, and spent it instead, on committing war crimes, and crimes directly against the Charter on which our country was founded.
In summation:
If you believe Khadr did not deserve a fair and quick trial, you are not Canadian. You do not stand for what Canada stands for. You are saying very clearly, that you don't care about evidence, treating people (who we presume are innocent until proven guilty) with basic decency, or your own or anyone else's right to a fair trial. You are, quite literally, openly supporting about half of Sharia law. You fuckwits.