You sure are confident for someone who has never conducted a lawsuit or studied law.
Omar Khadr likely to sue Ottawa for millions for complicity in his torture
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
G&M editorial on Khadr v Harper:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...per-seeing-is-believing/article1824821/page2/
Realistically the Canadian government SHOULD now sue the American government for running illegal, abusive court at Guantanamo.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...per-seeing-is-believing/article1824821/page2/
It seems to me there is not much in the way of real evidence that he's guilty of anything. Once he's repatrioted we should start some sort of inquest to repudiate the farce at Guantanamo and determine whether there is any real basis to consider that he's guilty.
Realistically the Canadian government SHOULD now sue the American government for running illegal, abusive court at Guantanamo.
Last edited:
Realistically??? How about in the wildest of fantasies.
FUrther, the Op-Ed (not truly an Editorial), was written by Gerald Caplan NDP activist.
The G&M, a right leaning paper, still ran the OpEd. But hey, you know you're right, there's no broad public support in Canada for the rights of Omar Khadr to a fair trial. It's just my imagination that major Canadian newspapers run these kinds of OpEd pieces.
I would like to see Canada run a public inquest into whether or not he got a fair trial.
I would like to see Canada run a public inquest into whether or not he got a fair trial.
I'm guessing he owns a suburban. It's the only personal vehicle that has the room for him, his degrees, a special recliner to help watch all those videos and his ego, I'm trying to figure out how he sees out the back window.
QUOTE=blackrock13;3348703]I'm guessing he owns a suburban. It's the only personal vehicle that has the room for him, his degrees, a special recliner to help watch all those videos and his ego, I'm trying to figure out how he sees out the back window.[/QUOTE]
Its a rough room tonight folks......
Its a rough room tonight folks......
It must look that way from under the sink. I'm guessing the sink must be another time zone as the G&M has been more left of centre for at least the last 3 or 4 years. Hmmm, how long have the Conservatives been in power?
Nope, you fail again; and another failed content-free post from you.
You've become so bitter about losing, so petty, that you're now smaller than the clippings from the nail on my baby finger. Can't you do better than this school yard bullshit? Do you have a brain to think with, any ability to make debating points at all?
Historically the G&M backed the Federal PC party. When they imploded and were replaced by the full right C party the G&M was left without a party to back. Their editorial bias is still similar to what the old PC's used to stand for, which is not as far right on social issues as the C's, but is generally to the right on economic and business issues.
they are a right leaning pape as far as business is concerned, editorially and most of the columnist are left leaning as of about 5 years ago.
I don't believe the above is factually correct. It is fairlyclear to any regular reader that, editorially, the paper backs the federal Liberals. This has been the case for quite awhile; I would venture a guess of 7 or 8 years.
Maybe you can explain then why they endorsed Stephen Harper in the 2008 election? The G&M has waffled between the C's and the L's ever since the PC's imploded, but they have tended to endorse the C's more than the L's.
Factually they are on the record as saying they prefer the Conservatives over the Liberals, if you want facts, those are the facts.
What Ms. Shephard overlooks with the analysis of the photo showing OK buried under rubble, either out of ignorance of facts or for the convenience of her argument, in that it is still very possible that he threw the grenade that killed SFC Speer.
Grenades don't always work as intended - meaning they don't always explode when they're supposed to. The Russian F1 "pineapple" should usually go boom in less then 5 seconds after triggering the fuse, but they are variants that allow for instant detonation or up to 15 seconds. And, sometimes they just dont detonate at all via the fuse (more on that).
The F1, which is what is claimed was thrown by OK, has an effective radius roughly equal to the average distance it can be thrown manually, and thats about 100'. When you throw it, you'd better be able to hide behind or beneath something or else you might catch some of the frags. So it may be possible for someone to throw a grenade and seek shelter under something (which might end up collapsing on him if there are other explosions going on in the area).
Back to grenades not detonating - you've pulled the pin which sets the fuse, stood up and yelled "Frag out!", threw it then ducked and covered.....so you've done just about everything you're supposed to. But the thing doesnt go off. It just lies there. Looks like you've got a dud, don't it? Well, maybe just a dud fuse. That li'l baby is packed with explosives, so its still quite dangerous. It might blow up by "cooking off" (thats where a heatsource triggers ignition or explosion of ammo or explosives), or even by "sympathetic detonation" (a nearby explosion causes this one to also explode). So OK could have thrown the grenade, which cooked off some time later when Speer was close to it (Speer had removed his helmet, meaning he assumed the area was safe or he just fuc&ed up). As to some other guy having thrown the grenade - you could use simple geometry to see who could & couldn't have thrown the grenade based on where the man was relative to the grenade (distance, line-of-sight, etc). If this other survivor was on the other end of the compound while OK was within LOS and distance, you'd probably be correct in saying it was OK who threw the grenade which cooked off 10 minutes later and killed Speer. Now, none of us have seen the full diagram of the scene detailing where the bad guys were found & where Speer was killed, so there's possibilities not covered.....but to say "there's no way OK could have thrown that grenade because he was unconscious & buried" is a bit simplistic, IMO.
If you ignore evidence, or even reasonable doubt, then OK is an innocent child manipulated by his parents yadda yadda yadda. But theres tons of valid evidence out there indicating otherwise.
the imediate action drill when we had a dud on the range was to sit there for 1/2 an hour and wait to see if the thing decided to go off. If not I got to go out and apply persuasion.
The reporter in this case is making judments and decisions years after the fact and without actually being there, the wall could have collapesed after he threw the thing, or it could have been destroyed as a result of the reply to the grenade being thrown . Either way unless she was there during the action the best she can do is insinuate her version of the facts.
The reporter in this case is making judments and decisions years after the fact and without actually being there, the wall could have collapesed after he threw the thing, or it could have been destroyed as a result of the reply to the grenade being thrown . Either way unless she was there during the action the best she can do is insinuate her version of the facts.
Perhaps the endorsed him because he was the best option available at the time. The Sun has endorsed Liberals any numbewr of times and I think they endorsed Miller last time out. An election endosrsement means little beside Hey we are paying attention.
